HPE GreenLake Administration
- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- Operating Systems
- >
- Operating System - HP-UX
- >
- f90 problems (parallelization)
Operating System - HP-UX
1832984
Members
2778
Online
110048
Solutions
Forums
Categories
Company
Local Language
back
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Forums
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Discussions
back
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Blogs
Information
Community
Resources
Community Language
Language
Forums
Blogs
Topic Options
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
12-17-2001 10:53 PM
12-17-2001 10:53 PM
f90 problems (parallelization)
Merry Chrismas,
I encountered following 2 confused phenomenon while I tried
to parallelize a loop in a real application.
Some facts:
- The serial loop runs about 0.02-7 seconds
- compiling options: +O3 +Oparallel +Onodynsel
- privatization of arrays were done by duplicated arrays
+ last values were taken care of by myself.
- loop contains 3 nested loops inside, maximal nest level is 4
1)
fact update:
- compiling options: +O3 +Oparallel +Onodynsel
phenomenon:
directive "C$DIR LOOP_PARALLEL" C$DIR NO_PARALLEL
---------------------------------------------------------
execution time 3T ~ 4T T
( the first case is 3~4 times slower than the second case )
possible reasons?
a) T ~ 0.02-7 second, which is enough to cover the overhead of
the library subroutines such as fork() or pthread utilities.
b) while using "C$DIR LOOP_PARALLEL", there is no difference between
with or without attached "C$DIR LOOP_PRIVATE(...)" entries.
2)
fact update:
- compiling options: +O3 (+O2)
- with "C$DIR LOOP_PARALLEL" directive
phenomenon:
compiling options +O3 +O2
--------------------------------------------
execution time 3T ~ 5T T
two problems from this phenomenon:
a) "+O3" + "C$DIR LOOP_PARALLEL" determined the slowness
==> "+Oparallel" switch here have no effect on that
( should have though )
b) "+O3" lost performance dramatically comparing to "+O2"
in this case.
( in general, "+O3" is slightly slower than "+O2" too )
The first problem is what I need to get over with. I encountered the
second one while I walking around the first problem.
Thanks a bunch + happy holiday.
The source code is attached + the make file is as below:
( same make file content is in the attached source )
F90 = f90
O3POPTS=+U77 +extend_source +O3 +r8 +Oparallel +cpp=yes
FLDOPTS = -lpthread -lcps -lveclib -lm
.f.o:
$(F90) $(O3POPTS) -c $<
TI.par: TISI.p1.o
time $(F90) $(O3POPTS) -o $@ TISI.p1.o $(FLDOPTS)
I encountered following 2 confused phenomenon while I tried
to parallelize a loop in a real application.
Some facts:
- The serial loop runs about 0.02-7 seconds
- compiling options: +O3 +Oparallel +Onodynsel
- privatization of arrays were done by duplicated arrays
+ last values were taken care of by myself.
- loop contains 3 nested loops inside, maximal nest level is 4
1)
fact update:
- compiling options: +O3 +Oparallel +Onodynsel
phenomenon:
directive "C$DIR LOOP_PARALLEL" C$DIR NO_PARALLEL
---------------------------------------------------------
execution time 3T ~ 4T T
( the first case is 3~4 times slower than the second case )
possible reasons?
a) T ~ 0.02-7 second, which is enough to cover the overhead of
the library subroutines such as fork() or pthread utilities.
b) while using "C$DIR LOOP_PARALLEL", there is no difference between
with or without attached "C$DIR LOOP_PRIVATE(...)" entries.
2)
fact update:
- compiling options: +O3 (+O2)
- with "C$DIR LOOP_PARALLEL" directive
phenomenon:
compiling options +O3 +O2
--------------------------------------------
execution time 3T ~ 5T T
two problems from this phenomenon:
a) "+O3" + "C$DIR LOOP_PARALLEL" determined the slowness
==> "+Oparallel" switch here have no effect on that
( should have though )
b) "+O3" lost performance dramatically comparing to "+O2"
in this case.
( in general, "+O3" is slightly slower than "+O2" too )
The first problem is what I need to get over with. I encountered the
second one while I walking around the first problem.
Thanks a bunch + happy holiday.
The source code is attached + the make file is as below:
( same make file content is in the attached source )
F90 = f90
O3POPTS=+U77 +extend_source +O3 +r8 +Oparallel +cpp=yes
FLDOPTS = -lpthread -lcps -lveclib -lm
.f.o:
$(F90) $(O3POPTS) -c $<
TI.par: TISI.p1.o
time $(F90) $(O3POPTS) -o $@ TISI.p1.o $(FLDOPTS)
student
1 REPLY 1
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
12-17-2001 11:08 PM
12-17-2001 11:08 PM
Re: f90 problems (parallelization)
The tables messed up. Here
are them again:
1)
loop_parallel
execution time = 3T ~ 5T
no_parallel
execution time = T
2)
+O3
execution time = 3T ~ 5T
+O2
execution time = T
are them again:
1)
loop_parallel
execution time = 3T ~ 5T
no_parallel
execution time = T
2)
+O3
execution time = 3T ~ 5T
+O2
execution time = T
student
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Hewlett Packard Enterprise. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation.
Company
Events and news
Customer resources
© Copyright 2025 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP