Hi Marshall,
I think we're definitely on the right track.
If I replace the reverse call with the following function I get a parallel
speedup of ~7.3 on an 8 core machine.
(defn copy-to-java-list [coll]
(let [lst (java.util.LinkedList.)]
(doseq [x coll]
(.addFirst lst x))
lst))
This function should do as much memory allocation as the clojure reverse
but has vastly better parallel performance.
There does seem to be something unusual about conj and
clojure.lang.PersistentList in this parallel test case and I don't think
it's related to the JVMs memory allocation.
Cameron.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
