Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming.threads > #1714
| From | aminer <aminer@toto.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.programming.threads, comp.programming |
| Subject | About my scalable RWLock... |
| Date | 2013-09-17 17:39 -0700 |
| Organization | albasani.net |
| Message-ID | <l1ai6a$9dt$1@news.albasani.net> (permalink) |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
Hello, But i have something to add to what i wrote in my algorithm explanation, so if you have noticed in the "writers" side , each writer verifies if all the FCount1^[i].fcount1 equal to zero , so you will say that my algorithm have a weakness in the writer side since every writer must transfer many cache lines so it will be slow, but be smart please and imagine that we have 100 cores, and you have to start 100 threads , so when a writer will enter the RWlock() method it will set all the FCount1^[i].fcount1 to zero in its corresponding core, and since every FCount1^[i].fcount1 resides in a core , so i think as soon a writer will finish to verify the first FCount1^[i].fcount1 may other FCount1^[i].fcount1 may have been decremeted to zero , so this will make the writer side faster , so i think my algorithm will still be fast on both the reader and the writer and it will be scalable. Other that that if you have 100 cores you can start fewer than 100 threads and make also my algorithm faster in the "writers" side , so this will also make my algorithm faster on both the readers and the writers and my algorithm will be scalable. Please read here about my scalable RWLock algorithm: http://pages.videotron.com/aminer/rwlock1.html Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Back to comp.programming.threads | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar
About my scalable RWLock... aminer <aminer@toto.net> - 2013-09-17 17:39 -0700 Re: About my scalable RWLock... aminer <aminer@toto.net> - 2013-09-17 17:45 -0700
csiph-web