Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming.threads > #1754
| From | aminer <aminer@toto.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.programming.threads, comp.programming |
| Subject | Re: The problem with a Spinlock... |
| Date | 2013-09-24 21:46 -0700 |
| Organization | albasani.net |
| Message-ID | <l1tfag$c4m$1@news.albasani.net> (permalink) |
| References | <l1teo2$bdk$4@news.albasani.net> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
I correct a typo, please read again: Hello, That's not the end of the story, there is still a problem with the Spinlock with an exponential backoff, i think you have to undertand something important, the backoff mechanism has to be set correctly to lower the cache-coherence traffic, but how to set it correctly ? cause the locked region has a variable size , so if for example your locked region takes much more time and it's bigger you have to set the backoff mechanism with the PAUSE asm instruction(followed by a sleep(0)) correctly so that it will be bigger than what it takes to execute the locked region , so this is the problem with the Spinlocks with backoff , so how can we you do that efficiently? that's the big question ! and i think it's not easy to do it, but for the lockfree queues, the time to execute a CAS is already known, so you can set the backoff mechanism of the lockfree queue correctly so that it become efficient under high contention. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Back to comp.programming.threads | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar
The problem with a Spinlock... aminer <aminer@toto.net> - 2013-09-24 21:36 -0700 Re: The problem with a Spinlock... aminer <aminer@toto.net> - 2013-09-24 21:46 -0700
csiph-web