Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming.threads > #2310
| Path | csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail |
|---|---|
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> |
| Newsgroups | comp.programming.threads, comp.programming, comp.arch |
| Subject | Re: And improved algorithm of a concurrent FIFO queue |
| Date | Wed, 7 May 2014 05:38:53 +0200 |
| Organization | None |
| Lines | 22 |
| Message-ID | <lkc9sd$qf$1@solani.org> (permalink) |
| References | <lkbvi7$588$1@news.albasani.net> <lkc41r$ehc$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| Mime-Version | 1.0 |
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset=US-ASCII |
| Content-Transfer-Encoding | 7bit |
| X-Trace | solani.org 1399433933 847 eJwFwYEBwDAEBMCVfHhiHKH2H6F3VId3mNONyw28eXEhSb9QPRmNPdzpsinF6kFlbYt8Tv0BDUcQww== (7 May 2014 03:38:53 GMT) |
| X-Complaints-To | abuse@news.solani.org |
| NNTP-Posting-Date | Wed, 7 May 2014 03:38:53 +0000 (UTC) |
| X-User-ID | eJwFwYEBwDAEBMCVSPxjnCL2H6F3uFS2G0HDYtNZc0T8LZ76FzlKngrYFWPFFLANjTjDzh8NqBCH |
| X-Newsreader | Claws Mail 3.9.3 (GTK+ 2.24.23; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) |
| Cancel-Lock | sha1:EKjmYJxSEjXGFrR+1CpbJSIOK0g= |
| X-NNTP-Posting-Host | eJwFwYEBACAEBMCVKI/G4cv+I3SH7eoMc7hhMGFFubu7cqWnRKdIBiCjVD1rWCBxZh7vex8VIxGQ |
| Xref | csiph.com comp.programming.threads:2310 comp.programming:4381 comp.arch:21554 |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
Show key headers only | View raw
On Tue, 6 May 2014 18:59:07 -0700 "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> wrote: > > "animer": > > > my new and improved algorithm has now 50% better throughput on the > > pop() side than the following Chris Thomasson concurrent FIFO queue > > that uses the bakery algorithm, and it has the same throughput on > > the push() side than the following Chriss Thomasson concurrent FIFO > > Queue. > > 50% better throughput on the pop side! AFAICT, that is a total > crock of fuc%ing bullshi%! Anyway, what the hell are all of those > nasty Sleep(0)'s littered around your code? I guess that he expects same behavior both on Unices and Windows. This is not the case. He should use sched_yield at least on Linux... -- Click OK to continue...
Back to comp.programming.threads | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
And improved algorithm of a concurrent FIFO queue aminer <aminer@toto.net> - 2014-05-06 20:42 -0700
Re: And improved algorithm of a concurrent FIFO queue "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2014-05-06 18:59 -0700
Re: And improved algorithm of a concurrent FIFO queue Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2014-05-07 05:38 +0200
csiph-web