Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming.threads > #2326
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.programming.threads, comp.programming |
| Subject | Re: A new node based scalable and fair and starvation-free lock is coming... |
| Date | 2014-05-11 18:13 -0700 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <lkp782$kb5$1@speranza.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | <lkp138$s1h$1@news.albasani.net> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
"aminer" wrote in message news:lkp138$s1h$1@news.albasani.net... > Hello, > A new node based fair and starvation-free lock is coming... > I have invented this lock today and i will post it today or tomorrow... [...] Starvation-free node based queue. Humm... I am interested in the algorithm! :^) Can you please try to run the algorithm against a verification tool like Relacy and/or ThreadSanitizer! If I like it, I might code it up in C++ and run it through Relacy myself. ;^) Also, have you read up on any of the hybrid versions? Each node contains an array. So, you can get unbounded access, and still get decent performance from using the per-node array... Also, using spinlocks in user code is a bit sketchy... All of the calls to Sleep(0) make be a bit uneasy to say the least. FWIW, this is why I use a set of eventcounts to handle any conditional waiting. Therefore, I do not need to spin. BTW, using spinlocks in user land code can be a bit sketchy... You can use an eventcount to get rid of any nasty spin- waiting.
Back to comp.programming.threads | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
A new node based scalable and fair and starvation-free lock is coming... aminer <aminer@toto.net> - 2014-05-11 19:28 -0700 Re: A new node based scalable and fair and starvation-free lock is coming... "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2014-05-11 18:13 -0700
csiph-web