Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming.threads > #1597 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2013-06-20 22:11 -0700 |
| Last post | 2013-06-21 13:13 -0700 |
| Articles | 3 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.programming.threads
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Lockfree algorithms are good for small number of cores "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2013-06-20 22:11 -0700
Re: Lockfree algorithms are good for small number of cores Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2013-06-21 17:47 +0100
Re: Lockfree algorithms are good for small number of cores "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2013-06-21 13:13 -0700
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-06-20 22:11 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Lockfree algorithms are good for small number of cores |
| Message-ID | <kq0n9k$7ts$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
> "aminer" wrote in message news:kq09he$vbk$2@dont-email.me... >Lockfree algorithms are good for small number of cores >up to 16 cores , but they are not good for more cores >than that, cause they higher the contention. You are focusing on wrong areas. For instance, have you ever thought of distributed lock/wait-free algorithms? For instance, even a distributed rwlock based on atomic RMW cannot really even think about beating a RCU like system. Calm down a little bit and ponder the thought Aminer...
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-06-21 17:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20130621174717.71e07762@bother.homenet> |
| In reply to | #1597 |
On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 22:11:09 -0700 "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> wrote: > > "aminer" wrote in message news:kq09he$vbk$2@dont-email.me... > > >Lockfree algorithms are good for small number of cores > >up to 16 cores , but they are not good for more cores > >than that, cause they higher the contention. > > You are focusing on wrong areas. For instance, have you ever thought > of distributed lock/wait-free algorithms? For instance, even a > distributed rwlock based on atomic RMW cannot really even think about > beating a RCU like system. > > Calm down a little bit and ponder the thought Aminer... However, you are largely responsible for this latest (cross-posted) outburst. Why not leave the guy be. Or at least have only one newsgroup spammed. Chris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-06-21 13:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kq2c4h$scm$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #1602 |
"Chris Vine" wrote in message news:20130621174717.71e07762@bother.homenet... On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 22:11:09 -0700 "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> wrote: [...] > > Calm down a little bit and ponder the thought Aminer... > However, you are largely responsible for this latest (cross-posted) > outburst. Why not leave the guy be. Or at least have only one > newsgroup spammed. Humm... I feel as if I opened Pandora's box? I was just trying to plant a seed. :^o
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | comp.programming.threads
csiph-web