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

Groups > comp.programming.threads > #2213

Re: About lockfree and waitfree... (2nd try)

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show key headers only | View raw

On 4/22/2014 9:27 AM, Stephen Fuld wrote:
> On 4/22/2014 1:05 AM, Nick Maclaren wrote:
>> In article <lj44ik$437$1@dont-email.me>, Ivan Godard
>> <ivan@ootbcomp.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The TANs I had in mind need not be sequential but must be ordered
>>> by access. That is, they must map to the time arrow but may have
>>> holes in the sequence. The numbers are to be used to give a
>>> priority ordering to ensure fairness in places where starvation
>>> is possible. The scheme you describe gives unique numbers, but
>>> not a global ordering. Or at least, if I have understood it :-)
>>
>> Yes.  Providing something that supports those algorithms is hard to
>> make efficient on more than a few cores.
>
> Yes, but as I understand Ivan's previous posts, there is no intent to
>  provide this capability over more cores than are in a single chip.
> Is that correct Ivan?

Yes; there is no Mill state off-chip, in general. Or that's the plan, 
anyway. Remember though: "No plan survives contact with the enemy" - N. 
Bonaparte.

  If that is so, then the scaling issues aren't
> a problem.  Heck, even for a system with a few chips on a board, with
> say core total counts in the 10s of cores, a simple scheme should
> work pretty well.  You can create problem situations like every
> executing reads of that register in a single instruction loop, but in
> real world usage, it should be fine.
>
> All you really need is a single register (with appropriate
> arbitration) that is incremented after each read.  Or, if you already
> have a global time of day/date clock, you can use that with another,
> shorter, register logically appended to it with the shorter register
> incremented on each read and reset to zero on each TOD click.

I see you agree that it doesn't scale. Yes, a single central TAN scales 
OK for a handful of cores and a 10-cycle or so cross-chip latency. 
However, we try to avoid building process dependence into the 
architecture. That TAN won't scale when there are 10,000 cores or 
hundred-cycle edge-to-edge transit, and we're not about to assume that 
the process industry is incapable of making such chips within the 
lifetime of the Mill architecture.

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

Thread

About lockfree and waitfree... aminer <aminer@toto.net> - 2014-04-13 19:54 -0700
  Re: About lockfree and waitfree... "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2014-04-13 19:38 -0700
    Re: About lockfree and waitfree... "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2014-04-13 19:47 -0700
      Re: About lockfree and waitfree... aminer <aminer@toto.net> - 2014-04-13 22:56 -0700
      Re: About lockfree and waitfree... "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2014-04-14 14:08 -0700
        Re: About lockfree and waitfree... "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2014-04-14 14:23 -0700
          Re: About lockfree and waitfree... Ivan Godard <ivan@ootbcomp.com> - 2014-04-14 16:27 -0700
          Re: About lockfree and waitfree... (2nd try) Ivan Godard <ivan@ootbcomp.com> - 2014-04-14 16:29 -0700
            Re: About lockfree and waitfree... (2nd try) "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2014-04-15 10:04 -0700
              Re: About lockfree and waitfree... (2nd try) Ivan Godard <ivan@ootbcomp.com> - 2014-04-15 10:34 -0700
                Re: About lockfree and waitfree... (2nd try) "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2014-04-17 16:35 -0700
                Re: About lockfree and waitfree... (2nd try) Ivan Godard <ivan@ootbcomp.com> - 2014-04-17 17:04 -0700
                Re: About lockfree and waitfree... (2nd try) nmm@needham.csi.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) - 2014-04-18 09:54 +0100
                Re: About lockfree and waitfree... (2nd try) Ivan Godard <ivan@ootbcomp.com> - 2014-04-18 02:31 -0700
                Re: About lockfree and waitfree... (2nd try) nmm@needham.csi.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) - 2014-04-18 11:56 +0100
                Re: About lockfree and waitfree... (2nd try) rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) - 2014-04-18 11:26 +0000
                Re: About lockfree and waitfree... (2nd try) Ivan Godard <ivan@ootbcomp.com> - 2014-04-18 13:30 -0700
                Re: About lockfree and waitfree... (2nd try) "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2014-04-21 14:25 -0700
                Re: About lockfree and waitfree... (2nd try) "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2014-04-21 14:31 -0700
                Re: About lockfree and waitfree... (2nd try) Ivan Godard <ivan@ootbcomp.com> - 2014-04-21 14:53 -0700
                Re: About lockfree and waitfree... (2nd try) "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2014-04-22 14:21 -0700
                Re: About lockfree and waitfree... (2nd try) "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2014-04-22 14:36 -0700
                Re: About lockfree and waitfree... (2nd try) Ivan Godard <ivan@ootbcomp.com> - 2014-04-22 15:30 -0700
                Re: About lockfree and waitfree... (2nd try) "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2014-05-01 00:48 -0700
                Re: About lockfree and waitfree... (2nd try) "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2014-05-25 13:16 -0700
                Re: About lockfree and waitfree... (2nd try) "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2014-04-21 14:34 -0700
                Re: About lockfree and waitfree... (2nd try) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-21 16:42 -0500
                Re: About lockfree and waitfree... (2nd try) Ivan Godard <ivan@ootbcomp.com> - 2014-04-21 15:02 -0700
                Re: About lockfree and waitfree... (2nd try) nmm@needham.csi.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) - 2014-04-22 09:05 +0100
                Re: About lockfree and waitfree... (2nd try) Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2014-04-22 09:27 -0700
                Re: About lockfree and waitfree... (2nd try) Ivan Godard <ivan@ootbcomp.com> - 2014-04-22 09:45 -0700
                Re: About lockfree and waitfree... (2nd try) nmm@needham.csi.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) - 2014-04-22 18:08 +0100
                Re: About lockfree and waitfree... (2nd try) Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2014-04-23 12:08 -0700
                Re: About lockfree and waitfree... (2nd try) nmm@needham.csi.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) - 2014-04-23 20:32 +0100
                Re: About lockfree and waitfree... (2nd try) Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2014-04-23 13:21 -0700
                Re: About lockfree and waitfree... (2nd try) nmm@needham.csi.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) - 2014-04-23 21:51 +0100
                Re: About lockfree and waitfree... (2nd try) Chris Gray <cg@GraySage.COM> - 2014-04-24 10:53 -0600
                Re: About lockfree and waitfree... (2nd try) nmm@needham.csi.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) - 2014-04-24 18:02 +0100
                Re: About lockfree and waitfree... (2nd try) Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2014-04-25 13:39 -0700
                Re: About lockfree and waitfree... (2nd try) "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2014-04-22 22:08 -0700
            Re: About lockfree and waitfree... (2nd try) George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2014-04-17 21:15 -0400
              Re: About lockfree and waitfree... (2nd try) George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2014-04-17 21:25 -0400
                Re: About lockfree and waitfree... (2nd try) Ivan Godard <ivan@ootbcomp.com> - 2014-04-17 19:17 -0700
                Re: About lockfree and waitfree... (2nd try) George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2014-04-18 00:46 -0400
              Re: About lockfree and waitfree... (2nd try) Ivan Godard <ivan@ootbcomp.com> - 2014-04-17 18:52 -0700
    Re: About lockfree and waitfree... aminer <aminer@toto.net> - 2014-04-13 22:54 -0700

csiph-web