Groups > comp.programming.threads > #1602

Re: Lockfree algorithms are good for small number of cores

From	Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk>
Newsgroups	comp.programming.threads
Subject	Re: Lockfree algorithms are good for small number of cores
Date	2013-06-21 17:47 +0100
Organization	Datemas.de http://www.news.datemas.de
Message-ID	<20130621174717.71e07762@bother.homenet> (permalink)
References	<kq09he$vbk$2@dont-email.me> <kq0n9k$7ts$1@speranza.aioe.org>

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 22:11:09 -0700
"Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> wrote:
> > "aminer"  wrote in message news:kq09he$vbk$2@dont-email.me... 
> 
> >Lockfree algorithms are good for small number of cores
> >up to 16 cores , but they are not good for more cores
> >than that, cause they higher the contention.
> 
> You are focusing on wrong areas. For instance,  have you ever thought 
> of distributed lock/wait-free algorithms? For instance, even a
> distributed rwlock based on atomic RMW cannot really even think about
> beating a RCU like system.
> 
> Calm down a little bit and ponder the thought Aminer...

However, you are largely responsible for this latest (cross-posted)
outburst. Why not leave the guy be.  Or at least have only one
newsgroup spammed.

Chris

Back to comp.programming.threads | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Lockfree algorithms are good for small number of cores "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2013-06-20 22:11 -0700
  Re: Lockfree algorithms are good for small number of cores Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2013-06-21 17:47 +0100
    Re: Lockfree algorithms are good for small number of cores "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2013-06-21 13:13 -0700

csiph-web