Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming.threads > #2068 > unrolled thread
| Started by | aminer <aminer@toto.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-01-28 15:07 -0800 |
| Last post | 2014-01-28 15:07 -0800 |
| Articles | 1 — 1 participant |
Back to article view | Back to comp.programming.threads
About RWLocks... aminer <aminer@toto.net> - 2014-01-28 15:07 -0800
| From | aminer <aminer@toto.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-28 15:07 -0800 |
| Subject | About RWLocks... |
| Message-ID | <lc92ka$n50$1@news.albasani.net> |
Hello all, I have said about my scalable RWLock this: "I was thinking about my new scalable RWLock2, you have to understand an important thing, if from the time t1 to the time t2 there is writes and reads and from the time t2 to time t3 there is only reads, so even if the time from t1 to t2 will add more to the overall time cause there is write threads, the perceived throughput from time t2 to t3 will be higher and the waiting time from t2 to t3 will be lower and this will make my scalable RWLock useful." I have heard that if there is frequent writes and frequent reads you have to repLace the scalable RWLock with a lock, i think this is not completly true, cause as i just said between time t2 and time t3 the perceived throughput is higher and the waiting time is lower and you can not have that with locks, so this is why my scalable RWLock is still useful even if there is frequent writes and frequent reads. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Back to top | Article view | comp.programming.threads
csiph-web