fix: fix the use of Charm++ locks and CkLoop - #782
Merged
Conversation
giacomofiorin
approved these changes
Mar 19, 2025
giacomofiorin
left a comment
giacomofiorin
left a comment
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You know more about the details of the Charm++ locking syntax, but overall this looks great.
Member
Author
|
There could be merge conflicts between this PR and #780, because I changed the |
Member
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR picks the fix of
smp_lock()andsmp_unlock()implementations in ac82aa9 , and usessmp_num_threads()for the number of chunksCkLoop_Parallelizeto avoid potential oversubscription.