Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

WIP: Parallelize evaluation of solvers in bmark_solvers #127

Draft
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

MonssafToukal
Copy link
Contributor

The goal of this PR is to allow the user to parallelize the evaluation of solvers when using the bmark_solvers(solvers, problems;...) method. It can be run in parallel locally or with any form of distributed computing backend supported by ClusterManagers.jl.

Currently, there are a couple of issues:

  • it does not work with CUTEst.jl problems
  • There is no doc for it. A code snippet can be added to the documentation.

"""
function bmark_solvers(solvers::Dict{Symbol, <:Any}, args...; kwargs...)
function bmark_solvers(solvers::Dict{Symbol, <:Any}, args...;parallel_eval=false, kwargs...)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

is this mandatory? what happens if we try to run the benchmarks in parallel and there is only 1 proc?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

it's mandatory to set parallel_eval=true if you want to benchmark in parallel. If you still have 1 proc, it won't do it in parallel. I added this keyword in case the user is handling multiple procs and does not want evaluate solvers in parallel. We could get rid of it it's not necessary.

Copy link
Member

@dpo dpo Sep 6, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok we could leave it, at least for debugging, but let's set it to true by default.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants