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

Groups > comp.programming.threads > #2487

I was asked a questoin by Chris Thomasson

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Hello,


I was asked a questoin by Chris Thomasson on comp.programming.threads, 
he asked why i have said that my scalable RWLocks algorithms are as
scalable as RCU and quiescent-state based reclamation (QSBR)
on the following IEEE paper on read mostly scenarios:

Here is the IEEE paper:

https://www.efficios.com/pub/rcu/urcu-main.pdf


Here is my answer:

You have to know that RCU and quiescent-state based reclamation (QSBR)
on the above IEEE parpers are scalable on the reader side cause
they don't use expensive atomic operations on the reader side, but
what i have just explained to you that my scalable RWLocks are also
scalable on the reader side, cause they don't use expensive atomic 
operations on the reader side, in fact my sclable RWLocks algorithms 
don't generate expensive cache-lines transfers on the reader side, so 
this why i have said that on read mostly operations scenarios my 
scalable RWLocks are as scalable as RCU of the above IEEE paper and as 
scalable as  quiescent-state based reclamation (QSBR) of the above IEEE 
paper.

I have done some empiric statistics with some benchmarks and i have
noticed that my scalable RWLocks scales even at 3% of writes.



Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.

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

Thread

I was asked a questoin by Chris Thomasson aminer <aminer@toto.net> - 2014-06-11 04:53 -0700

csiph-web