HPX VS Taskflow

https://github.com/STEllAR-GROUP/hpx Modern C++ concepts incorporated in a threading library. Lots of useful techniques used in there and we are trying to keep our code base very tidy. Feel free to chime in our libera channel #ste||ar if you have any questions.

https://github.com/STEllAR-GROUP/hpx Welcoming community + we have been part of GSoC for 4-5 years now so feel free to apply there when it opens ;)

You definitely do not want to learn Boost, trust me. The cudatoolkit is fine, HPX is great, so are Dask, and Ray. I do not recommend MPI unless those computers you have use InfiniBand.

I found this interesting library that might fit your goal.

I personally like the ideas in Parallelism v2 TS, which is available in for libstdc++ 11 onwards. The reference implementation is a library named Vc (afaik Vc is the most popular SIMD library for C++), and this has also been implemented in recent versions of HPX.

I am aware of DAGs of task based threading library like Taskflow and HPX however the benefit they have is not obvious to me, as the following sequential section depends on the parallel part being completed fully. If you want to suggest elaboration on the benefits of this approach would be welcome.

Github: https://github.com/STEllAR-GROUP/hpx

We're working on something similar, but based on sender/receiver in HPX (a lightweight threading runtime) and DLA-Future (distributed linear algebra currently based on (HPX) futures; based on sender/receiver in the future). With senders-as-awaitables this would also get you coroutine support for asynchronous MPI calls for free. We don't have that yet, but it's planned. In the meantime libunifex should be able to fill in the gaps.

For parallel programming nowadays, personally I reach for C++ Taskflow when I really care about performance, or a mix of core.async and running multiple load balanced instances when I’m doing more traditional web backend stuff in Clojure.

Also, you can take a look to good libraries. The problem is that very often libraries are heavily templated, so It could be hard. For example, I like the style of the Taskflow library, I think is very clear, is relatively small, while makes use of more advanced techniques: https://github.com/taskflow/taskflow

Cool. Thanks! How does it compare to taskflow?

I've not seen yet, but it's been a bit since I looked last, any evidence of being able to build a computation graph and "save" it to re-run on new inputs. Something like https://github.com/taskflow/taskflow

It seems you're describing something a generic parallel task framework. Check taskflow for a production ready example https://github.com/taskflow/taskflow/blob/master/

- https://github.com/taskflow/taskflow (I recommend to learn it first since its API and documentation are excellent)

If you want some sort of "job" system, where you submit items to a some sort of queue to be processed in parallel, try searching for a thread pool - there isn't one in the standard library, but there's about a million implementations online. There are more complicated versions of that idea, that describe computation as a directed acyclic graph, such as taskflow.

The tooling decisions affect engine design though. For example if you want to have visual representation of job graph as it happened in specific frame of interest you need to pass the information around about job relationships and output it to a tool of choice. For example see https://github.com/taskflow/taskflow

I am aware of DAGs of task based threading library like Taskflow and HPX however the benefit they have is not obvious to me, as the following sequential section depends on the parallel part being completed fully. If you want to suggest elaboration on the benefits of this approach would be welcome.