Optimizing cilk with ternary conditional

Optimizing cilk with ternary conditional

What is the best way to optimize the cycle


or somethings like that?

Thanks, Fabio

4 posts / 0 nouveau(x)
Dernière contribution
Reportez-vous à notre Notice d'optimisation pour plus d'informations sur les choix et l'optimisation des performances dans les produits logiciels Intel.
Best Reply

With cilk_for, it's important to make the induction variable local to each worker (thus C99 or C++):

cilk_for(int i=0;..... (there are lots of myths about appropriate data types)

icpc should tell you about this locality requirement (why not icc?).

If you want combined simd and multi-core parallelism, you must write it out with each i performing an array section using extended array notation, preferably cache aligned.  This may require AVX2 if it's an integer data type.

Intel compiler should optimize the alternative written with std::max(), while gcc doesn't offer vectorization of std::max, but, unlike the Intel compiler, offers vectorization with fmax et al. under -ffast-math (-ffinite-math-only).  If it weren't for these differences among compilers, I'd recommend max() [min] where it fits.

I'd say consider omp parallel for simd with Intel compiler; it's a bit simpler and more capable, although some similar considerations apply, along with the issues about using OpenMP and Cilk(tm) Plus in the same application.

Hi Tim,

first, Thanks!

then: I've not used local counter for the whole code and the parallelization works fine.

I'm guessing if standard C allows for local counter declaration, the same as C++. However

this is not important.

Coming back to the important issue, some suggestions you gave me are a bit obscures

(that is my fault) so I need to investigate a bit deeper the way to exploit parallel/vector

capability of processor(s) through programming and icc command line.

Thanks a lot.


You must set -std=c99 in order to accept cilk_for(int i;...

There is significant performance loss when sharing the loop counter among a large number of workers.  I guessed wrongly originally that cilk_for would automatically privatize, until I got the message under C++ and checked performance.

Laisser un commentaire

Veuillez ouvrir une session pour ajouter un commentaire. Pas encore membre ? Rejoignez-nous dès aujourd’hui