Borrar filtros
Borrar filtros

Parfor or parfeval, what is better?

20 visualizaciones (últimos 30 días)
Andrea Stevanato
Andrea Stevanato el 14 de Jul. de 2018
Respondida: Edric Ellis el 16 de Jul. de 2018
if I have some code that could be writed in same way with parfeval o parfor, what i have to use? What is better? Which is more advantageous, faster... e.g:
parfor i = 1:n
result = function(data);
end
or
for i = 1:n
F(i) = parfeval(@function, 1, data);
end
for i = 1:n
[index, value] = fetchNext(F);
end
  2 comentarios
Rik
Rik el 14 de Jul. de 2018
I couldn't find any comparisons with a quick search, although I did find that parfeval is (or used to be?) 'plagued by memory a leak'. I checked the release notes for mentions of parfeval, but nothing popped up.
In general I would assume that parfor is a better choice, but that might be a knee jerk reaction because of the feval part of its name.
Edric Ellis
Edric Ellis el 16 de Jul. de 2018
The memory leak described in that bug report is shown as being fixed in R2015a.

Iniciar sesión para comentar.

Respuesta aceptada

Edric Ellis
Edric Ellis el 16 de Jul. de 2018
At least some of the trade-offs are:
  • parfor is generally easier to use, and the code probably looks much more like your serial code
  • parfor loops can be used by people who don't have Parallel Computing Toolbox
  • parfor loops perform a degree of load-balancing to try and minimise overheads
  • parfeval gives you complete control over how the work is chunked up for the workers
  • parfeval is asynchronous, and lets the MATLAB client get on with other stuff while the workers are busy (e.g. updating plots or other visualisations)

Más respuestas (0)

Categorías

Más información sobre Asynchronous Parallel Programming en Help Center y File Exchange.

Community Treasure Hunt

Find the treasures in MATLAB Central and discover how the community can help you!

Start Hunting!

Translated by