Which part is responsible for orchestration? If we are working with pthreads, then I think most of the orchestration is done by the OS. Is there any parallel programming architecture where orchestration is done by programmers mostly?
jiajunbl
I'm also curious about this. Does Orchestration include the use of mutexes/condvars/semaphores by the programmer? Or just solely the OS scheduler like @meatie mentioned.
BigFish
In MPI, programmers have to deal with communication between workers explicitly. Is this corresponded to the Orchestration part? I still feel confused about this concept. Can someone help to explain it?
TDollasAKATMoneys
I would also like some clarification on what exactly orchestration entails. I think the previous comments have been correct with the fact that the OS and the programmer have some affiliation with orchestration, but @jiajunbl's question has a lot more specificity in what we are curious about.
parallelfifths
After completing HW 3, I would think that the programmer plays a big part in what we're calling "orchestration" here, as parallel BFS implementation in openMP was largely about determining which operations needed to be locked and carried out either in critical regions or with atomics.
But this level of orchestration seems to sit a level of abstraction up from the type of orchestration that the OS would be doing in handling the details of how pthreads are scheduled.
Are both of these levels of abstraction called "orchestration"?
abist
I agree with @parallelfifths. What we did in assignment 3 was definitely concrete examples of orchestration in the MPI model and OpenMP synchronization techniques. But I also think communication between threads by the OS also qualifies under orchestration, because the slide says the "scheduling tasks" is an example of orchestration.
Which part is responsible for orchestration? If we are working with pthreads, then I think most of the orchestration is done by the OS. Is there any parallel programming architecture where orchestration is done by programmers mostly?
I'm also curious about this. Does Orchestration include the use of mutexes/condvars/semaphores by the programmer? Or just solely the OS scheduler like @meatie mentioned.
In MPI, programmers have to deal with communication between workers explicitly. Is this corresponded to the Orchestration part? I still feel confused about this concept. Can someone help to explain it?
I would also like some clarification on what exactly orchestration entails. I think the previous comments have been correct with the fact that the OS and the programmer have some affiliation with orchestration, but @jiajunbl's question has a lot more specificity in what we are curious about.
After completing HW 3, I would think that the programmer plays a big part in what we're calling "orchestration" here, as parallel BFS implementation in openMP was largely about determining which operations needed to be locked and carried out either in critical regions or with atomics.
But this level of orchestration seems to sit a level of abstraction up from the type of orchestration that the OS would be doing in handling the details of how pthreads are scheduled.
Are both of these levels of abstraction called "orchestration"?
I agree with @parallelfifths. What we did in assignment 3 was definitely concrete examples of orchestration in the MPI model and OpenMP synchronization techniques. But I also think communication between threads by the OS also qualifies under orchestration, because the slide says the "scheduling tasks" is an example of orchestration.