Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming.threads > #1927
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.programming.threads, comp.programming |
| Subject | Re: Spinlock and lockfree and waitfree... |
| Date | 2013-10-17 17:10 -0700 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <l3punq$em3$1@speranza.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | <l3kl4m$ioi$1@news.albasani.net> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
"aminer" wrote in message news:l3kl4m$ioi$1@news.albasani.net... [...] > So in my opinion , since the Spinlock with an exponential backoff is > 6 times faster under contention , so the risk of a stavartion will > be lowered, and since it minimizes the cache-coherence traffic, so this > will make the Spinlock with an exponential backoff > a better alternative if you want better speed and to minimize > cache-coherence traffic. One tiny point: A lockfree algorithm can make progress on every failure of the condition. A spinlock cannot. ;^/
Back to comp.programming.threads | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar
Spinlock and lockfree and waitfree... aminer <aminer@toto.net> - 2013-10-15 20:03 -0700 Re: Spinlock and lockfree and waitfree... aminer <aminer@toto.net> - 2013-10-15 21:35 -0700 Re: Spinlock and lockfree and waitfree... "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2013-10-17 17:10 -0700
csiph-web