Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Welcome to Software Development on Codidact!

Will you help us build our independent community of developers helping developers? We're small and trying to grow. We welcome questions about all aspects of software development, from design to code to QA and more. Got questions? Got answers? Got code you'd like someone to review? Please join us.

Parallel execution with algorithms and execution policies

+1
−0

I've just learned about algorithms, ranges and views (from a book), including execution policy such as std::execution::par and I naively tried:

import std;

int main() {
    auto values {std::ranges::views::iota(0, 10)};
    std::for_each(
        std::execution::par, 
        std::begin(values), std::end(values), 
        [] (const auto value) {
            std::println("value: {}, thread: {}", 
                value, std::this_thread::get_id());
        }
    );
        
    return 0;
}

According to std::this_thread::get_id(), all iterations are handled by the same thread.

Does the compiler consider this a too simple task to warrant the overhead of setting up multiple threads or are there other preconditions to be met?

I am compiling with:

g++ -std=c++26 -O2 -Wall -fmodules -fsearch-include-path bits/std.cc -ltbb parallel.cpp -o parallel
History

0 comment threads

2 answers

+1
−0

I did some experiments, maybe it helps:

When building with modules (I don't have much experience with modules), I couldn't find any symbol for tbb when using nm, when I replaced modules with #includes, tbb was used, task_arenas to be more specific.

Using perf record -s ./parallel I could confirm, that the module version doesn't use tbb or threads, but using includes, 8 threads (my core count × 2) are used for 100 inputs.

Here is my code:

#include <execution>
#include <print>
#include <ranges>
#include <thread>

int main() {
  auto values{std::ranges::views::iota(0, 100)};
    std::for_each(
        std::execution::par, 
        std::begin(values), std::end(values), 
        [] (const auto value) {
            std::println("value: {}, thread: {}", 
                value, std::this_thread::get_id());
        }
    );
        
    return 0;
}

and my output:

  • TBB: 2023.1
$ g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 16.1.1 20260728
$ g++ -std=c++26 -O2 -Wall -ltbb parallel.cpp -o parallel
$ ./parallel
value: 0, thread: 140232593692544
value: 1, thread: 140232593692544
value: 2, thread: 140232593692544
value: 3, thread: 140232593692544
value: 4, thread: 140232593692544
value: 5, thread: 140232593692544
value: 6, thread: 140232593692544
value: 7, thread: 140232593692544
value: 8, thread: 140232593692544
value: 9, thread: 140232593692544
value: 10, thread: 140232593692544
value: 11, thread: 140232593692544
value: 12, thread: 140232593692544
value: 13, thread: 140232593692544
value: 14, thread: 140232593692544
value: 15, thread: 140232593692544
value: 16, thread: 140232593692544
value: 17, thread: 140232593692544
value: 18, thread: 140232593692544
value: 19, thread: 140232593692544
value: 20, thread: 140232593692544
value: 21, thread: 140232593692544
value: 22, thread: 140232593692544
value: 23, thread: 140232593692544
value: 24, thread: 140232593692544
value: 25, thread: 140232593692544
value: 26, thread: 140232593692544
value: 50, thread: 140232580118208
value: 51, thread: 140232580118208
value: 52, thread: 140232580118208
value: 27, thread: 140232593692544
value: 28, thread: 140232593692544
value: 29, thread: 140232593692544
value: 30, thread: 140232593692544
value: 31, thread: 140232593692544
value: 53, thread: 140232580118208
value: 54, thread: 140232580118208
value: 55, thread: 140232580118208
value: 56, thread: 140232580118208
value: 57, thread: 140232580118208
value: 58, thread: 140232580118208
value: 59, thread: 140232580118208
value: 60, thread: 140232580118208
value: 61, thread: 140232580118208
value: 62, thread: 140232580118208
value: 63, thread: 140232580118208
value: 64, thread: 140232580118208
value: 65, thread: 140232580118208
value: 66, thread: 140232580118208
value: 67, thread: 140232580118208
value: 68, thread: 140232580118208
value: 69, thread: 140232580118208
value: 32, thread: 140232593692544
value: 33, thread: 140232593692544
value: 34, thread: 140232593692544
value: 87, thread: 140232567523008
value: 35, thread: 140232593692544
value: 36, thread: 140232593692544
value: 70, thread: 140232580118208
value: 37, thread: 140232575919808
value: 74, thread: 140232580118208
value: 75, thread: 140232571721408
value: 71, thread: 140232489952960
value: 76, thread: 140232571721408
value: 78, thread: 140232580118208
value: 79, thread: 140232580118208
value: 84, thread: 140232494151360
value: 85, thread: 140232494151360
value: 86, thread: 140232494151360
value: 43, thread: 140232494151360
value: 44, thread: 140232494151360
value: 45, thread: 140232494151360
value: 46, thread: 140232494151360
value: 47, thread: 140232494151360
value: 48, thread: 140232494151360
value: 49, thread: 140232494151360
value: 40, thread: 140232494151360
value: 41, thread: 140232494151360
value: 81, thread: 140232485754560
value: 38, thread: 140232575919808
value: 39, thread: 140232575919808
value: 72, thread: 140232489952960
value: 93, thread: 140232575919808
value: 73, thread: 140232593692544
value: 83, thread: 140232593692544
value: 98, thread: 140232593692544
value: 99, thread: 140232593692544
value: 90, thread: 140232593692544
value: 91, thread: 140232593692544
value: 92, thread: 140232593692544
value: 95, thread: 140232593692544
value: 80, thread: 140232580118208
value: 82, thread: 140232485754560
value: 94, thread: 140232575919808
value: 88, thread: 140232567523008
value: 89, thread: 140232567523008
value: 42, thread: 140232494151360
value: 77, thread: 140232571721408
value: 96, thread: 140232489952960
value: 97, thread: 140232489952960
History

0 comment threads

+1
−0

I can’t comment on mavieth’s answer, but I think their conclusion is correct; the libstdc++ std module doesn’t use the oneTBB backend.

It seems like the problem is that oneTBB, when included as headers, injects translation-unit-local stuff into the module purview… which is not allowed.

oneTBB is modularized (import tbb;, see the third line in the table), so if you wanted to use it in a modules context, you could… but you’d have to use the actual oneTBB API, not the standard API.

We will probably have to wait for libstdc++ and oneTBB to sort out their issues before libstdc++ can use oneTBB as a back-end during a modules build.

History

1 comment thread

Interesting! I realize my Debian forky has `/usr/include/oneapi/tbb.cppm` via `libtbb-dev`, so I coul... (1 comment)

Sign up to answer this question »