Re: [Algorithms] General purpose task parallel threading approach

[Jon W. <jw...@gm...>]

Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
>
>         Here are two possible work orderings:
>
>         xy
>         zw
>         a
>         b
>         c
>         d
>
>         ax
>         by
>         cz
>         dw
>

>
> In fact, in your particular case this isn't only possible without 
> prioritization, but it's what happens if you pay no attention what so 
> ever and just write things naively, expressing parallelism where it is.
>


There is no guarantee of that. The scheduler, expressing "parallelism 
where it is" could easily choose the xyzw first order, rather than 
trying to run a in parallel with x. There is nothing in the knowledge of 
the scheduler you propose to guarantee the second (desirable) outcome, 
except perhaps wishful thinking on part of the implementer.

Sincerely,

jw