zturner added inline comments.
================
Comment at: include/lldb/Utility/TaskPool.h:18-20
+ std::function<void()> cbs[sizeof...(T)]{tasks...};
+ llvm::parallel::for_each_n(llvm::parallel::par, static_cast<size_t>(0),
+ sizeof...(T), [&cbs](size_t idx) { cbs[idx](); });
----------------
I'm not sure this is the most efficient implementation. `std::function` has
pretty poor performance, and there might be no need to even convert everything
to `std::function` to begin with. You could make this a bit better by using
`llvm::function_ref<void()>` instead.
That said, I wonder if it's worth adding a function like this to
`llvm::TaskGroup`? And you could just enqueue all the tasks, rather than
`for_each_n`. Not sure if there would be a different in practice, what do you
think?
================
Comment at: source/Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/SymbolFileDWARF.cpp:1995-1996
//----------------------------------------------------------------------
- TaskMapOverInt(0, num_compile_units, extract_fn);
+ llvm::parallel::for_each_n(llvm::parallel::par, 0U, num_compile_units,
+ extract_fn);
----------------
What did you decide about the recursive parallelism? I don't know if that
works yet using LLVM's default executor.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D33246
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
