Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
| Message-ID | <4F35E51B.7010903@SPAM.comp-arch.net> (permalink) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-02-10 19:48 -0800 |
| From | "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> |
| Organization | comp-arch.net |
| Newsgroups | comp.arch |
| Subject | Re: Single Thread Performance |
| References | (1 earlier) <1083982.844.1328506553065.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbtr6> <cc21bb69-16bf-4692-a8b4-7244bdc87a94@vd8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com> <jh3uqm$c2$1@gosset.csi.cam.ac.uk> <jh3veo$ojd$1@adenine.netfront.net> <18985540.1742.1328921030856.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqks7> |
On 2/10/2012 4:43 PM, MitchAlsup wrote: > On Friday, February 10, 2012 2:42:03 PM UTC-6, Unspecified wrote: >> Other then Transaction Memory, is there any other contribution? >> Also, I thought TM was a fallout of a decision taken in favour >> of multicores. > > Transactional Memory is an attempt to get around the inability > of ATOMIC events to make forward progress in the face of contention. > Where Atomic events are what one can do wiht the currently available > primatives. > > Mitch Hmm... AFAIK Intel's HW TM does NOT guarantee forward progress - if there is contention, i.e. if the read and write sets of simultaneously executing transactions conflict, then ALL may abort, and retry. In the lack of other mechanisms, potentially forever. Intel's HW TM has an alternate path that one must use to provide that other mechanism. Probably one should code the alternate path to use locks. Worst case, stop everyone else. HLE, of course, provides semantics equivalent to, actually slightly stronger than, locks.
Back to comp.arch | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Single Thread Performance "Unspecified" <partha@perfectvips.com> - 2012-02-04 21:54 +0530
Re: Single Thread Performance Brett Davis <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2012-02-06 05:55 -0600
Re: Single Thread Performance nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-02-06 13:06 +0000
Re: Single Thread Performance Robert Myers <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 14:12 -0500
Re: Single Thread Performance BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-06 13:36 -0700
Re: Single Thread Performance nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-02-06 20:47 +0000
Re: Single Thread Performance BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-06 15:07 -0700
Re: Single Thread Performance Brett Davis <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2012-02-06 16:32 -0600
Re: Single Thread Performance Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-02-06 17:45 -0600
Re: Single Thread Performance Brett Davis <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2012-02-07 06:01 -0600
Re: Single Thread Performance BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-07 13:32 -0700
Re: Single Thread Performance timcaffrey@aol.com (Tim McCaffrey) - 2012-02-09 19:08 +0000
Re: Single Thread Performance BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-10 08:56 -0700
Re: Single Thread Performance nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-02-06 20:42 +0000
Re: Single Thread Performance Robert Myers <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 19:36 -0500
Re: Single Thread Performance "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-02-06 18:28 -0800
Re: Single Thread Performance Robert Myers <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 22:23 -0500
Re: Single Thread Performance nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-02-07 06:52 +0000
Re: Single Thread Performance MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-02-06 12:10 -0800
Re: Single Thread Performance Thomas Womack <twomack@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2012-02-07 10:13 +0000
Re: Single Thread Performance Brett Davis <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2012-02-20 23:58 -0600
Re: Single Thread Performance timcaffrey@aol.com (Tim McCaffrey) - 2012-02-07 17:33 +0000
Re: Single Thread Performance nedbrek <nedbrek@yahoo.com> - 2012-02-15 08:10 -0500
Re: Single Thread Performance Robert Myers <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 14:17 -0500
Re: Single Thread Performance del cecchi <delcecchi@gmail.com> - 2012-02-25 22:07 -0800
Re: Single Thread Performance jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2012-02-07 17:57 +0000
Re: Single Thread Performance Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2012-02-05 13:13 -0800
Re: Single Thread Performance MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-02-05 21:35 -0800
Re: Single Thread Performance timcaffrey@aol.com (Tim McCaffrey) - 2012-02-07 17:38 +0000
Re: Single Thread Performance Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-02-07 14:54 -0600
Re: Single Thread Performance timcaffrey@aol.com (Tim McCaffrey) - 2012-02-07 21:33 +0000
Re: Single Thread Performance Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-02-07 23:13 -0600
Re: Single Thread Performance timcaffrey@aol.com (Tim McCaffrey) - 2012-02-08 18:54 +0000
Re: Single Thread Performance Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-02-08 15:17 -0600
Re: Single Thread Performance Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2012-02-09 08:13 +0100
Re: Single Thread Performance timcaffrey@aol.com (Tim McCaffrey) - 2012-02-09 17:08 +0000
Re: Single Thread Performance Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-02-09 16:01 -0600
Re: Single Thread Performance Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2012-02-09 07:56 +0100
Re: Single Thread Performance timcaffrey@aol.com (Tim McCaffrey) - 2012-02-09 17:18 +0000
Re: Single Thread Performance Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2012-02-08 10:17 +0100
Re: Single Thread Performance Jon <jon@beniston.com> - 2012-02-08 05:32 -0800
Re: Single Thread Performance MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-02-07 16:00 -0800
Re: Single Thread Performance timcaffrey@aol.com (Tim McCaffrey) - 2012-02-08 18:35 +0000
Re: Single Thread Performance Partha <parthaspanda22@gmail.com> - 2012-02-10 11:32 -0800
Re: Single Thread Performance nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-02-10 20:31 +0000
Re: Single Thread Performance "Unspecified" <partha@perfectvips.com> - 2012-02-11 02:12 +0530
Re: Single Thread Performance nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-02-10 21:04 +0000
Re: Single Thread Performance MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-02-10 16:43 -0800
Re: Single Thread Performance "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-02-10 19:48 -0800
Re: Single Thread Performance EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2012-02-12 14:31 -0500
Re: Single Thread Performance Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2012-02-12 21:50 -0500
Re: Single Thread Performance "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-02-12 19:45 -0800
Re: Single Thread Performance MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-02-12 20:36 -0800
Re: Single Thread Performance "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-02-13 06:46 -0800
Re: Single Thread Performance MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-02-13 08:58 -0800
Re: Single Thread Performance "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2012-02-13 16:19 -0800
Re: Single Thread Performance Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com> - 2012-02-14 03:55 +0000
Re: Single Thread Performance Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2012-02-14 10:30 +0100
Re: Single Thread Performance Andrew Reilly <areilly---@bigpond.net.au> - 2012-02-14 10:49 +0000
Re: Single Thread Performance Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2012-02-14 13:21 +0100
Re: Single Thread Performance Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2012-02-14 13:11 -0800
Re: Single Thread Performance MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-02-14 09:29 -0800
Re: Single Thread Performance EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2012-02-14 12:40 -0500
Re: Single Thread Performance EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2012-02-14 16:12 -0500
Re: Single Thread Performance Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com> - 2012-02-14 21:14 +0000
Re: Single Thread Performance Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com> - 2012-02-14 21:16 +0000
Re: Single Thread Performance Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com> - 2012-02-14 21:09 +0000
Re: Single Thread Performance MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-02-14 09:26 -0800
Re: Single Thread Performance Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2012-02-15 08:44 +0100
Re: Single Thread Performance "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-02-15 01:07 -0800
Re: Single Thread Performance Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2012-02-14 10:16 +0100
Re: Single Thread Performance Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2012-02-08 01:04 -0800
csiph-web