Change backend threading behavior
This PR is based on the discussion #2159, having into account your feedback. I apologize for the late reply and hope did not make any mistake.
Review checklist
This checklist is meant to assist creators of PRs (to let them know what reviewers will typically look for) and reviewers (to guide them in a structured review process). Items do not need to be checked explicitly for a PR to be eligible for merging.
Purpose and scope
- [ ] The PR has a single goal that is clear from the PR title and/or description.
- [ ] All code changes represent a single set of modifications that logically belong together.
- [ ] No more than 500 lines of code are changed or there is no obvious way to split the PR into multiple PRs.
Code quality
- [ ] The code can be understood easily.
- [ ] Newly introduced names for variables etc. are self-descriptive and consistent with existing naming conventions.
- [ ] There are no redundancies that can be removed by simple modularization/refactoring.
- [ ] There are no leftover debug statements or commented code sections.
- [ ] The code adheres to our conventions and style guide, and to the Julia guidelines.
Documentation
- [ ] New functions and types are documented with a docstring or top-level comment.
- [ ] Relevant publications are referenced in docstrings (see example for formatting).
- [ ] Inline comments are used to document longer or unusual code sections.
- [ ] Comments describe intent ("why?") and not just functionality ("what?").
- [ ] If the PR introduces a significant change or new feature, it is documented in
NEWS.mdwith its PR number.
Testing
- [ ] The PR passes all tests.
- [ ] New or modified lines of code are covered by tests.
- [ ] New or modified tests run in less then 10 seconds.
Performance
- [ ] There are no type instabilities or memory allocations in performance-critical parts.
- [ ] If the PR intent is to improve performance, before/after time measurements are posted in the PR.
Verification
- [ ] The correctness of the code was verified using appropriate tests.
- [ ] If new equations/methods are added, a convergence test has been run and the results are posted in the PR.
Created with :heart: by the Trixi.jl community.
Thanks for your contribution! I am not so sure if we really want to offer other threading strategies (namely dynamic) in the main repository. Same holds also for the serial option - IMO, this is not really necessary, as one could just run the program with a single thread.
Thanks for the feedback @DanielDoehring and @vchuravy. Appreciate you taking the time to review it. I thought it might increase user control, but I also understand your perspective.
Codecov Report
Attention: Patch coverage is 40.00000% with 6 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
Project coverage is 96.79%. Comparing base (
55d44d9) to head (657311f). Report is 41 commits behind head on main.
| Files with missing lines | Patch % | Lines |
|---|---|---|
| src/auxiliary/math.jl | 0.00% | 6 Missing :warning: |
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2417 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 96.80% 96.79% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 495 495
Lines 40917 40919 +2
==========================================
- Hits 39608 39607 -1
- Misses 1309 1312 +3
| Flag | Coverage Δ | |
|---|---|---|
| unittests | 96.79% <40.00%> (-0.01%) |
:arrow_down: |
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
:rocket: New features to boost your workflow:
- :snowflake: Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
CI is failing, so it appears that something is off. Could you please take a look and see what's going on?
CI is failing, so it appears that something is off. Could you please take a look and see what's going on?
I believe the issue is the in static macro "@static if _PREFERENCE_THREADING === :polyester && LoopVectorization.check_args(u_ode)" code line. It should be fine now.
I've also missed a previous _PREFERENCE_POLYESTER line. Sorry about that.
@afilogo thank you very much for your contribution. I am going to bring this PR to the finish line in #2476