I am in the process of learning Julia and I'd like to do some buffer manipulation.
What I want to achieve is the following:
I've got a buffer that I can write to and read from at the same time, meaning that the speed with which I add a value to the Fifo buffer approximately equals the speed with which I read from the buffer. Reading and writing will happen in separate threads so it can occur simultaneously.
Additionally, I want to be able to control the values that I write into the buffer based on user input. For now, this is just a simple console prompt asking for a number, which I then want to write into the stream continously. The prompt refreshes and asks for a new number to write into the stream, but the prompt is non-blocking, meaning that in the background, the old number is written to the buffer until I enter a new number, which is then written to the buffer continuously.
This is my preliminary code for simulatenous reading and writing of the stream:
using Causal
CreateBuffer(size...) = Buffer{Fifo}(Float32, size...)
function writetobuffer(buf::Buffer, n::Float32)
while !isfull(buf)
write!(buf, fill(n, 2, 1))
end
end
function readfrombuffer(buf::Buffer)
while true
while !isempty(buf)
#show read(buf)
end
end
end
n_channels = 2
sampling_rate = 8192
duration = 2
n_frames = sampling_rate * duration
sbuffer = CreateBuffer(n_channels, n_frames)
print("Please enter a number: ")
n = parse(Float32, readline())
s1 = Threads.#spawn writetobuffer(sbuffer, n)
s2 = Threads.#spawn readfrombuffer(sbuffer)
s1 = fetch(s1)
s2 = fetch(s2)
I am not sure how to integrate the user input in a way that it keeps writing and reading the latest number the user put in. I looked at the documentation for channels, but didn't manage to get it working in a way that was non-blocking for the stream writing. I don't know that the correct approach is (channels, events, julia's multithreading) to enable this functionality.
How would I go on about to include this?
I managed to get it working, but I think it could be improved:
using Causal
CreateBuffer(size...) = Buffer{Fifo}(Float32, size...)
function writeToBuffer(buf::Buffer, n::Float32)
write!(buf, fill(n, 2, 1))
end
function readFromBuffer()
global soundbuffer
println("Starting")
sleep(0.5)
while true
while !isempty(soundbuffer)
read(soundbuffer)
end
end
println("Exiting...")
end
function askForInput()::Float32
print("Please enter a number: ")
a = parse(Float32, readline())
return(a)
end
function inputAndWrite()
global soundbuffer
old_num::Float32 = 440
new_num::Float32 = 440
while true
#async new_num = askForInput()
while (new_num == old_num)
writeToBuffer(soundbuffer, new_num)
end
old_num = new_num
println("Next iteration with number " * string(new_num))
end
end
n_channels = 2
sampling_rate = 8192
duration = 2
n_frames = sampling_rate * duration
soundbuffer = CreateBuffer(n_channels, n_frames)
s1 = Threads.#spawn inputAndWrite()
s2 = Threads.#spawn readFromBuffer()
s1 = fetch(s1)
s2 = fetch(s2)
Using Flux.jl, is there a way I can avoid overfitting by implementing some sort of early stopping functionality?
Flux.jl provides a built in Flux.early_stopping function which can be used as follows:
julia> loss = let l = 0
() -> l += 1
end; # pseudo loss function that returns increasing values
julia> es = Flux.early_stopping(loss, 3);
julia> Flux.#epochs 30 begin
es() && break
end
[ Info: Epoch 1
you can read more about this here: https://fluxml.ai/Flux.jl/stable/utilities/#Flux.early_stopping for further details on how to implement early stopping in Flux.
I have a function that optionally uses threads for its main loop, doing so when an argument usingthreads is true. At the moment, the code looks like this:
function dosomething(usingthreads::Bool)
n = 1000
if usingthreads
Threads.#threads for i = 1:n
#20 lines of code here
end
else
for i = 1:n
#same 20 lines of code repeated here
end
end
end
Less nasty than the above would be to put the "20 lines" in a separate function. Is there another way?
You could use a macro that changes its behavior depending on the result of Threads.nthreads():
macro maybe_threaded(ex)
if Threads.nthreads() == 1
return esc(ex)
else
return esc(:(Threads.#threads $ex))
end
end
Without threading, this macro will be a no-op:
julia> #macroexpand #maybe_threaded for i in 1:5
print(i)
end
:(for i = 1:5
#= REPL[2]:2 =#
print(i)
end)
But when threading is enabled and e.g. JULIA_NUM_THREADS=4 it will expand to the threaded version:
julia> #maybe_threaded for i in 1:5
print(i)
end
41325
Edit: Upon rereading the question, I realize this doesn't really answer it but it might be useful anyway.
You can use ThreadsX as suggested in this discourse link.
The answer from the thread (all credit to oxinabox):
using ThreadsX
function foo(multi_thread=true)
_foreach = multi_thread ? ThreadsX.foreach : Base.foreach
_foreach(1:10) do ii
#show ii
end
end
I am trying to port some of my R code to Julia;
Basically I have rewritten the following R code in Julia:
library(parallel)
eps_1<-rnorm(1000000)
eps_2<-rnorm(1000000)
large_matrix<-ifelse(cbind(eps_1,eps_2)>0,1,0)
matrix_to_compare = expand.grid(c(0,1),c(0,1))
indices<-seq(1,1000000,4)
large_matrix<-lapply(indices,function(i)(large_matrix[i:(i+3),]))
function_compare<-function(x){
which((rowSums(x==matrix_to_compare)==2) %in% TRUE)
}
> system.time(lapply(large_matrix,function_compare))
user system elapsed
38.812 0.024 38.828
> system.time(mclapply(large_matrix,function_compare,mc.cores=11))
user system elapsed
63.128 1.648 6.108
As one can notice I am getting significant speed-up when going from one core to 11. Now I am trying to do the same in Julia:
#Define cluster:
addprocs(11);
using Distributions;
#everywhere using Iterators;
d = Normal();
eps_1 = rand(d,1000000);
eps_2 = rand(d,1000000);
#Create a large matrix:
large_matrix = hcat(eps_1,eps_2).>=0;
indices = collect(1:4:1000000)
#Split large matrix:
large_matrix = [large_matrix[i:(i+3),:] for i in indices];
#Define the function to apply:
#everywhere function function_split(x)
matrix_to_compare = transpose(reinterpret(Int,collect(product([0,1],[0,1])),(2,4)));
matrix_to_compare = matrix_to_compare.>0;
find(sum(x.==matrix_to_compare,2).==2)
end
#time map(function_split,large_matrix )
#time pmap(function_split,large_matrix )
5.167820 seconds (22.00 M allocations: 2.899 GB, 12.83% gc time)
18.569198 seconds (40.34 M allocations: 2.082 GB, 5.71% gc time)
As one can notice I am not getting any speed up with pmap. Maybe somebody can suggest alternatives.
I think that some of the problem here is that #parallel and #pmap don't always handle moving data to and from the workers very well. Thus, they tend to work best in situations where what you are executing doesn't require very much data movement at all. I also suspect that there are probably things that could be done to improve their performance, but I'm not certain on the details.
For situations in which you do need more data moving around, it may be best to stick with options that directly call functions on workers, with those functions then accessing objects within the memory space of those workers. I give one example below, which speeds up your function using multiple workers. It uses perhaps the simplest option, which is #everywhere, but #spawn, remotecall() etc. are also worth considering, depending on your situation.
addprocs(11);
using Distributions;
#everywhere using Iterators;
d = Normal();
eps_1 = rand(d,1000000);
eps_2 = rand(d,1000000);
#Create a large matrix:
large_matrix = hcat(eps_1,eps_2).>=0;
indices = collect(1:4:1000000);
#Split large matrix:
large_matrix = [large_matrix[i:(i+3),:] for i in indices];
large_matrix = convert(Array{BitArray}, large_matrix);
function sendto(p::Int; args...)
for (nm, val) in args
#spawnat(p, eval(Main, Expr(:(=), nm, val)))
end
end
getfrom(p::Int, nm::Symbol; mod=Main) = fetch(#spawnat(p, getfield(mod, nm)))
#everywhere function function_split(x::BitArray)
matrix_to_compare = transpose(reinterpret(Int,collect(product([0,1],[0,1])),(2,4)));
matrix_to_compare = matrix_to_compare.>0;
find(sum(x.==matrix_to_compare,2).==2)
end
function distribute_data(X::Array, WorkerName::Symbol)
size_per_worker = floor(Int,size(X,1) / nworkers())
StartIdx = 1
EndIdx = size_per_worker
for (idx, pid) in enumerate(workers())
if idx == nworkers()
EndIdx = size(X,1)
end
#spawnat(pid, eval(Main, Expr(:(=), WorkerName, X[StartIdx:EndIdx])))
StartIdx = EndIdx + 1
EndIdx = EndIdx + size_per_worker - 1
end
end
distribute_data(large_matrix, :large_matrix)
function parallel_split()
#everywhere begin
if myid() != 1
result = map(function_split,large_matrix );
end
end
results = cell(nworkers())
for (idx, pid) in enumerate(workers())
results[idx] = getfrom(pid, :result)
end
vcat(results...)
end
## results given after running once to compile
#time a = map(function_split,large_matrix); ## 6.499737 seconds (22.00 M allocations: 2.899 GB, 13.99% gc time)
#time b = parallel_split(); ## 1.097586 seconds (1.50 M allocations: 64.508 MB, 3.28% gc time)
julia> a == b
true
Note: even with this, the speedup is not perfect from the multiple processes. But, this is to be expected, since there is still a moderate amount of data to be returned as a result of your function, and that data's got to be moved, taking time.
P.S. See this post (Julia: How to copy data to another processor in Julia) or this package (https://github.com/ChrisRackauckas/ParallelDataTransfer.jl) for more on the sendto and getfrom functions I used here.
Edit: This question is about Roblox Lua.
I'm using math.sin(tick()) to get a variable number and would like for it to always start at 0. Is this possible using math.sin? Is there something else I can use other than tick() to make this work?
Example:
for i = 1, 10 do
local a = math.sin(tick())+1
print(a)
wait()
end
wait(1)
for i = 1, 10 do
local a = math.sin(tick())+1
print(a)
wait()
end
My goal is to have this number start at 0 every time and then increase from there. So, it would start at 0 then increase to 2 and then decrease back to zero and continue modulating between 0 and 2 for as long as I continue calling it. Using the example above the number starts at any arbitrary number between 0 and 2.
I took a different approach and came up with this. It does exactly what I wanted to do with math.sin(tick()). If anyone knows other ways to accomplish this I would like to know.
local n = 0
local m = 0
local Debounce = true
local function SmoothStep(num)
return num * num * (3 - 2 * num)
end
while Debounce do
for i = 1, 100 do
wait()
m = m+.01
n = SmoothStep(m)
print(n)
if not Debounce then break end
end
for i = 1, 100 do
wait()
m = m+.01
n = SmoothStep(m)
print(n)
if not Debounce then break end
end
end
To non-Roblox users: tick() returns the local UNIX time. wait(t) yields the current thread for t seconds, the smallest possible interval being roughly 1/30th of a second.
Given that math.sin(0) equals 0, what you have to do is subtract the tick() inside the loop with the time the loop began at. This should make the expression inside math.sin start at roughly 0 at the beginning of the loop.
local loopstart = tick()
for i = 1, 10 do
local a = math.sin(tick() - loopstart)+1
print(a)
wait()
end