Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming.threads > #2509
| From | Ramine <ramine@1.1> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.programming, comp.programming.threads |
| Subject | Re: About RCU... |
| Date | 2014-06-14 14:28 -0700 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <lnieq0$djq$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <lni9vl$cis$1@dont-email.me> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On 6/14/2014 1:06 PM, Ramine wrote: > > Chris Thomasson wrote: > >IMVHO, you do not seem understand why RCU beats a non-asymmetric > >rw-lock. Besides that, how can you compare RCU with a read-write mutex > >when RCU allows reads and writes to occur concurrently? > > >Can a write proceed when a read is in progress in any of your rw-mutex > >algos? > > > That's not true in general, RCU uses some technics that permit > parallelism like a write proceed when reads are in progrogress, but > the RCU technic don't apply to the general cases, if you are > writing and reading to multiple memory addresses and they are conflicts, > that means you are writing to many same memory addresses so > RCU will not run a write and reads in parallel... > > And i think on read mostly scenarios the difference between RCU and my I mean the difference on performance of course. > scalable RWLocks are small, cause my scalable RWLocks are scalable on > read mostly scenarios , they scale even at 3% of writes. > > > > Thank you, > Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Back to comp.programming.threads | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
About RCU... Ramine <ramine@1.1> - 2014-06-14 13:06 -0700 Re: About RCU... Ramine <ramine@1.1> - 2014-06-14 14:28 -0700
csiph-web