Replies: 2 comments
-
I'm not too sure why the condition is |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
-
If the goal is strictly waiting for a task to finish, then changing != to < makes sense. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
My understanding of
wait_for_one
is: code calls it to wait for one task to finish, but the implementation seems to also stop waiting when there is new task (it waits on conditionn_active_tasks() != n_tasks_old
):mlx/mlx/scheduler.h
Lines 127 to 135 in d699cc1
Why shouldn't the condition be
n_active_tasks() < n_tasks_old
?Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions