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

is it possible to restrict eldarica to one thread? #12

Open
dbueno opened this issue Aug 3, 2019 · 5 comments
Open

is it possible to restrict eldarica to one thread? #12

dbueno opened this issue Aug 3, 2019 · 5 comments

Comments

@dbueno
Copy link

dbueno commented Aug 3, 2019

I've looked through the options and the code a little but didn't find anything. Is there a way to run eldarica so that it only uses one thread, regardless of how many cores are available on the machine?

@pruemmer
Copy link
Collaborator

pruemmer commented Aug 4, 2019 via email

@dbueno
Copy link
Author

dbueno commented Aug 5, 2019

I should have said: the use case, ultimately, is benchmarking. Right now I am only trying to get an idea of how hard some instances are.

I ran, in parallel, 30 difficult-ish instances of eldarica on a 64-core machine; within 30 minutes the load average was ~950. (None had solved within 30 minutes.) So, really, I was wondering why there were so many processes spawned by eldarica. Is this behavior expected?

(I realize now I asked about threads but really I wanted to know about processes. Sorry about that.)

I don't have any experience with benchexec. I was able to get what I needed quickly in other ways, at least until now. Do you recommend benchexec for ensuring all the threads/processes use one core?

@pruemmer
Copy link
Collaborator

pruemmer commented Aug 6, 2019 via email

@dbueno
Copy link
Author

dbueno commented Aug 6, 2019

I tested just one process. The load average climbed to 40 after about 3 minutes.

I changed the Java parameters to -Xmx8192m -Xss80000k; just multiplied by 4.

The load average climbed to 40 after about 4 minutes.

@pruemmer
Copy link
Collaborator

pruemmer commented Aug 6, 2019 via email

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants