Indeed, I've used variations of most of these in the past. :)
My contention is that this is the sort of thing that more people will want to
do more frequently, and that this is a reasonable argument in favour of
including the functionality *correctly* in the core language for maximum
expressiveness without external dependencies.
I just don't know if that fits with the maintenance/extension philosophy
applied to bash ;)
--
iC.
On 3 May 2012, at 20:21, Elliott Forney wrote:
> Here is a construct that I use sometimes... although you might wind up
> waiting for the slowest job in each iteration of the loop:
>
>
> maxiter=100
> ncore=8
>
> for iter in $(seq 1 $maxiter)
> do
> startjob $iter &
>
> if (( (iter % $ncore) == 0 ))
> then
>wait
> fi
> done
>
>
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Colin McEwan wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> I don't know if this is anything that has ever been discussed or
>> considered, but would be interested in any thoughts.
>>
>> I frequently find myself these days writing shell scripts, to run on
>> multi-core machines, which could easily exploit lots of parallelism (eg. a
>> batch of a hundred independent simulations).
>>
>> The basic parallelism construct of '&' for async execution is highly
>> expressive, but it's not useful for this sort of use-case: starting up 100
>> jobs at once will leave them competing, and lead to excessive context
>> switching and paging.
>>
>> So for practical purposes, I find myself reaching for 'make -j' or GNU
>> parallel, both of which destroy the expressiveness of the shell script as I
>> have to redirect commands and parameters to Makefiles or stdout, and
>> wrestle with appropriate levels of quoting.
>>
>> What I would really *like* would be an extension to the shell which
>> implements the same sort of parallelism-limiting / 'process pooling' found
>> in make or 'parallel' via an operator in the shell language, similar to '&'
>> which has semantics of *possibly* continuing asynchronously (like '&') if
>> system resources allow, or waiting for the process to complete (';').
>>
>> Any thoughts, anyone?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> --
>> C.
>>
>> https://plus.google.com/109211294311109803299
>> https://www.facebook.com/mcewanca
