Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming.threads > #5248
| Path | csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail |
|---|---|
| From | Wisdom90 <d@d.d> |
| Newsgroups | comp.programming.threads |
| Subject | Re: Read again my "final" corrected post about about efficiency and performance.. |
| Date | Wed, 16 Oct 2019 13:29:34 -0400 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Lines | 33 |
| Message-ID | <qo7k1u$9cn$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <a56ddc60-5f15-4dd4-b415-d4932b2313f9@googlegroups.com> <qo702n$63k$1@news.albasani.net> |
| Mime-Version | 1.0 |
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed |
| Content-Transfer-Encoding | 7bit |
| Injection-Date | Wed, 16 Oct 2019 17:29:34 -0000 (UTC) |
| Injection-Info | reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="23237738623bf2ac373deed43b632389"; logging-data="9623"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19coTw0UZpHsatJkinZVa3Y" |
| User-Agent | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.1.2 |
| Cancel-Lock | sha1:hXIp25Pg21zRplamdjgW/d+Op1I= |
| In-Reply-To | <qo702n$63k$1@news.albasani.net> |
| Content-Language | en-US |
| Xref | csiph.com comp.programming.threads:5248 |
Show key headers only | View raw
On 10/16/2019 7:48 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: > Amine, a quest for you: > Database-servers and operating-system-kernels mostly use LRU as > the scheme to evict old buffers from their cache. One issue with > LRU is, that an LRU-structure can't be updated by multiple threads > simultaneously. So you have to have a global lock. > I managed to write a LRU-caching-class that can update the links > in the LRU-list to put the most recent fetched block to the head > of the list without any lock in almost any acccess. Only when > flushing an entry or inserting a new I have to lock the structure > completely; but in contrast to cache-hits this has usually a mag- > nitude lower frequency because of the slowness of disk-/ssd-access, > so this doesn't relly hurt. > The algorithm is partitiylly locked, partitially lock-free. Even > the case when putting cache hits to the head has to be processed > in locked mode in very rare cases. And as I said inserting and > flushing is conventional locked access. > So the quest is for you: Can you guess what I did? I think i am also smart, so i have just quickly found a solution that is scalable and that is not your solution, so it needs my hashtable that scales very well and it needs my fully scalable FIFO queue that i have invented. But i will not patent it, because i will let you patent yours since i have seen you speaking on the newsgroup of C++ about it. But my solution is not Lockfree, it uses locks and it is scalable. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Back to comp.programming.threads | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Read again my "final" corrected post about about efficiency and performance.. aminer68@gmail.com - 2019-10-14 14:18 -0700
Re: Read again my "final" corrected post about about efficiency and performance.. Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-10-16 13:48 +0200
Re: Read again my "final" corrected post about about efficiency and performance.. Wisdom90 <d@d.d> - 2019-10-16 13:29 -0400
Re: Read again my "final" corrected post about about efficiency and performance.. Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-10-16 20:14 +0200
Re: Read again my "final" corrected post about about efficiency and performance.. Wisdom90 <d@d.d> - 2019-10-16 14:19 -0400
Re: Read again my "final" corrected post about about efficiency and performance.. Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-10-17 05:07 +0200
Re: Read again my "final" corrected post about about efficiency and performance.. Wisdom90 <d@d.d> - 2019-10-16 14:20 -0400
csiph-web