Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.programming.threads > #1881

Here is again my Proof

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Hello,

I have noticed that Robert Wessel didn't understood my ideas..

So i will prove it to you right now , so follow with me carefully please...

Let say we have 4 threads, and 4 cores, and let say that each
thread is running the same parallel code, and let say we have also a 
serial code inside some critical section, and let say that the parallel 
part is
0.1% and the serial part is 0.9%, so let say that the serial part
takes 1 second(it means 0.1%) and the parallel part takes 9 seconds(it 
means 0.9%), what i have tried to explain to you is that the Amadhl's 
law or equation  is not a correct law and it doesn't give a correct results,
here is why: so if the 4 threads are all looping and looping again
for a number of times running the same parallel code and the same serial 
code and let say that they are contending at the same time
for the critical section, this  is why i have called an ideal contention
scenario, so if they  are contending AT THE SAME TIME for the critical 
section(the serial part) they will run 4 serial parts in 4 seconds in 
one loop  and they will run 4 parallel parts in 9 seconds in one loop, 
hence it will take 13 seconds in one loop , but  if you run the parallel 
part and the serial part serially they will take 40 seconds, so the 
scalability will equal 40 seconds divide by 13 seconds = 3.07X, this is 
the result that gives us the Amdahl's law, it's 1 /(0.1 + 0.9/4) = 
3.07X, but this is not the end of the story , so follow now carefully 
with me, so let divide the parallel part into 9 small parts  each equal to
1 seconds, and the serial part is equal to 1 second, so if the threads
are looping and not contending at the same time for the critical section 
and let say that when the threads are looping the first thread will be 
on the first small part equal to 1 seconds of the 9 small parts of the 9 
seconds of the parallel part ,  the second thread will be on the second 
small part equal to 1 seconds of the 9 parts of the 9 seconds of the 
parallel part, and the third threads will be on the third small part 
equal to 1 second of the 9 parts of the 9 seconds of the parallel part , 
and the fourth thread will be on the third small part equal to 1 second 
of the 9 parts of the 9 seconds of the parallel part , so imagine the 4 
threads
looping again and again and not changing there places like that , so
there will be no serial part at all, cause when each thread will be on 
the 1 second of the serial part the other threads will not be on the the 
same serial part, so this is a none contention scenario , so since
there is no serial part so the scalability will be perfect and
equal to 4X , so as you have noticed the Amdahl equation gives
the scalability of the ideal contention scenario all the threads
are contending at the same time so the scalability will equal 3.07X, but 
if they are not contending at all the scalability will be perfect
and equal to 4X, and if you have less contention this will scale
better than 3.07X,  so now i have proved to you that the Amdahl's law
doesn't give you a correct result.



Hope you have understood my arguments and my ideas against the
Amdahl's law.




Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.

Back to comp.programming.threads | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Here is again my Proof aminer <aminer@toto.net> - 2013-10-09 20:26 -0700
  Re: Here is again my Proof aminer <aminer@toto.net> - 2013-10-09 20:40 -0700
  Re: Here is again my Proof aminer <aminer@toto.net> - 2013-10-09 20:45 -0700
  Re: Here is again my Proof aminer <aminer@toto.net> - 2013-10-09 20:56 -0700
  Re: Here is again my Proof Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2013-10-10 00:03 -0500
    Re: Here is again my Proof aminer <aminer@toto.net> - 2013-10-10 11:51 -0700
      Re: Here is again my Proof aminer <aminer@toto.net> - 2013-10-10 12:32 -0700
        Re: Here is again my Proof blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2013-10-18 18:58 +0000

csiph-web