Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming.threads > #1602
| Path | csiph.com!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.datemas.de!news.datemas.de!cvinex--nospam--x.freeserve.co.uk!news |
|---|---|
| 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 | Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:47:17 +0100 |
| Organization | Datemas.de http://www.news.datemas.de |
| Lines | 20 |
| Message-ID | <20130621174717.71e07762@bother.homenet> (permalink) |
| References | <kq09he$vbk$2@dont-email.me> <kq0n9k$7ts$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| Mime-Version | 1.0 |
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset=US-ASCII |
| Content-Transfer-Encoding | 7bit |
| X-Trace | news.datemas.de OOnBFLY+6WpYJRewvtjYmMcvDbF30TVwCF6mx1h9GfskJUJ8PDH+fVi00Nj9Kc8Sq9ZMYYExaJMek/IfYF3FqE06b6XLghjdxD5UCDJ/7T0PsB/Ord472l9Qxk+Ng4NETzcJoBMaJ2IgXj8YWY7bwDLSD7oVtDCYADYqhMeomfjVITOS/MAo6g== |
| X-Complaints-To | abuse@datemas.de |
| NNTP-Posting-Date | Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:47:21 +0000 (UTC) |
| X-Newsreader | Claws Mail 3.9.2 (GTK+ 2.24.19; i686-pc-linux-gnu) |
| Xref | csiph.com comp.programming.threads:1602 |
Show key headers only | View raw
On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 22:11:09 -0700 "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> wrote: > > "aminer" wrote in message news:kq09he$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
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