Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming.threads > #1864
| Path | csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!news.albasani.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail |
|---|---|
| From | aminer <aminer@toto.net> |
| Newsgroups | comp.programming.threads, comp.programming |
| Subject | Re: About Lockfree... |
| Date | Mon, 07 Oct 2013 20:14:48 -0700 |
| Organization | albasani.net |
| Lines | 45 |
| Message-ID | <l2viob$2e9$1@news.albasani.net> (permalink) |
| References | <l2viao$psq$1@news.albasani.net> |
| Mime-Version | 1.0 |
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed |
| Content-Transfer-Encoding | 7bit |
| X-Trace | news.albasani.net y8H5OdZb0WQCN9ci5ocgpVkoOmcfVPDcXe39pK3svrtRMl0mxyMHcxKMkenFBrD2ua+b6ehih7qSnExggT0A/w== |
| NNTP-Posting-Date | Tue, 8 Oct 2013 00:14:03 +0000 (UTC) |
| Injection-Info | news.albasani.net; logging-data="8NqijBfVqHQ4vacS+7fyaepxAFxB8//kV2mEoLXkter3DcAF1gJygkVO7u2qMK0uutz1k9JIRNQbYN3EsrSdgqqMWfqrt8zsgDZW0pmoagJwCcHe2w3iAQT+rCZxAagI"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@albasani.net" |
| User-Agent | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 |
| In-Reply-To | <l2viao$psq$1@news.albasani.net> |
| Cancel-Lock | sha1:Nex5W0B2h7mxolj0UXnS8qCtbpA= |
| Xref | csiph.com comp.programming.threads:1864 comp.programming:3873 |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
Show key headers only | View raw
I wrote: > 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. And it's better to use two Locks , one for the push() and one for the pop(). Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. On 10/7/2013 8:07 PM, aminer wrote: > > 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 — Previous in thread | 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