By: Jouni Osmala (josmala.delete@this.cc.hut.fi), May 12, 2013 8:57 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
EduardoS (no.delete@this.spam.com) on May 12, 2013 7:21 pm wrote:
> Ricardo B (ricardo.b.delete@this.xxxxx.xx) on May 12, 2013 5:48 pm wrote:
> > Lossless compression (WinRAR, etc) in general sees big improvements.
> > They're trival to parallelize effectively to any number of threads and they're very low on ILP.
>
> Your definition of "trivial" may be a bit to loose...
Maybe they are trivial in sense of 1) Part of code base needed to parallerize is relatively small. 2) It may reside in library in which it needs to be done only ONCE and many applications benefit from the parallerization.
> Ricardo B (ricardo.b.delete@this.xxxxx.xx) on May 12, 2013 5:48 pm wrote:
> > Lossless compression (WinRAR, etc) in general sees big improvements.
> > They're trival to parallelize effectively to any number of threads and they're very low on ILP.
>
> Your definition of "trivial" may be a bit to loose...
Maybe they are trivial in sense of 1) Part of code base needed to parallerize is relatively small. 2) It may reside in library in which it needs to be done only ONCE and many applications benefit from the parallerization.
