elvis/stencilparallelpattern
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

spelling mistakes

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
elvis
2023-08-26 21:14:54 +02:00
parent a21e5d46da
commit 0476329279
2 changed files with 5 additions and 5 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

10
report/document.tex
View File

@ -307,11 +307,11 @@ The class \texttt{Stencil} holds both the parallel implementation using the Fast
The class \texttt{Reader} reads a binary file composed of 4 bytes representing the number of rows, 4 bytes representing the number of columns and then the raw matrix data. Each element is a \texttt{char} in all the test cases. The result is stored in the class \texttt{Task} which will be passed to the next node. If instead the operator \texttt{()} is called, only the data will be returned as a pointer.
The \texttt{Task} class can support matrixes of different element type rather than \texttt{char}.
The \texttt{Task} class can support matrices of different element type rather than \texttt{char}.
The \texttt{Writer} instead writes to disk the task to the same folder, overwriting existing files if present.
The \texttt{Stencil} class divides the matrix in rougly equal parts and distributes them to other workers.
The \texttt{Stencil} class divides the matrix in roughly equal parts and distributes them to other workers.
%% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - %%
\subsection{Native C++ Threads}
@ -457,7 +457,7 @@ the fastflow has a peek of speedup and scalability when using 4 workers in the s
\end{center}
The file \texttt{random400x2500} % chktex 29
performs best with 16 workers in the Fastflow implementation and slightly better at 64 workers compared to 32 workers in terms of speedup and scalability but has a significand drop in efficiency from $0.361$ to $0.184$. The relationship between number of workers and speedup is close to linear up to 8 workers.
performs best with 16 workers in the Fastflow implementation and slightly better at 64 workers compared to 32 workers in terms of speedup and scalability but has a significant drop in efficiency from $0.361$ to $0.184$. The relationship between number of workers and speedup is close to linear up to 8 workers.
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
@ -483,11 +483,11 @@ The file \texttt{equation} more closely follows a linear relationship between sp
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
As the size of the input increases the speedup and the scalability both follow linear trends up with a higher ammount of threds.
As the size of the input increases the speedup and the scalability both follow linear trends up with a higher amount of threads.
The scalability for both test files \texttt{equation} and \texttt{equation2} never go below $0.37$, but is slightly better for the implementation with native C++ threads.
The difference in the three quantities between the test with file \texttt{equation} and the test with file \texttt{euqation1} is much smaller for the Fastflow version. In the native thread version instead there is a small improvement expecially with a higher number of workers.
The difference in the three quantities between the test with file \texttt{equation} and the test with file \texttt{equation1} is much smaller for the Fastflow version. In the native thread version instead there is a small improvement especially with a higher number of workers.
\end{document}