Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming.threads > #1863
| From | aminer <aminer@toto.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.programming.threads, comp.programming |
| Subject | About Lockfree... |
| Date | 2013-10-07 20:07 -0700 |
| Organization | albasani.net |
| Message-ID | <l2viao$psq$1@news.albasani.net> (permalink) |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
Hello, We have to be smart please, there are those that like Lockfree algorithms, but in my opinion those lockfree algorithms have an important weakness, in high contention scenarios they will higher the cache-coherence traffic so they will slow the things, in worst scenarios you can have 1+2+3+4+ ..N = ((N^2+N)/2) or even worse N+N+N+N...N = N^2 cache lines transfers from the memory and this is not good at all, so what i will advice is to wrap those push() and pop() of your FIFO queue with a Lock that supports FIFO fairness and that lower the cache-coherence traffic, this is better i think, so you can use for example the Scalable Anderson Lock , the scalable MCS Lock or my scalable distributed Lock for that , those Locks are FIFO fair and better for realtime systems. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Back to comp.programming.threads | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar
About Lockfree... aminer <aminer@toto.net> - 2013-10-07 20:07 -0700 Re: About Lockfree... aminer <aminer@toto.net> - 2013-10-07 20:14 -0700 Re: About Lockfree... aminer <aminer@toto.net> - 2013-10-07 20:35 -0700
csiph-web