Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming.threads > #2745 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ramine <ramine@1.1> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-12-06 17:04 -0800 |
| Last post | 2014-12-06 16:31 -0800 |
| Articles | 4 — 3 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.programming.threads
I have just read the following about Intel TSX Ramine <ramine@1.1> - 2014-12-06 17:04 -0800
Re: I have just read the following about Intel TSX "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2014-12-06 14:42 -0800
Re: I have just read the following about Intel TSX Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-07 01:21 +0100
Re: I have just read the following about Intel TSX "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2014-12-06 16:31 -0800
| From | Ramine <ramine@1.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-06 17:04 -0800 |
| Subject | I have just read the following about Intel TSX |
| Message-ID | <m5vufu$uk6$2@dont-email.me> |
Hello, I have just read the following about Intel TSX: "At the moment, TSX is quite slow, even if there's no contention and you don't do anything in the block. There's a lot of overhead. Using TSX naively may slow down even threaded code. Getting significant performance gains from it is non-trivial." read more here a little bit down the webpage: http://cbloomrants.blogspot.ca/search?updated-min=2014-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2015-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=43 So i think my newer scalable distributed sequential lock is faster than Intel TSX on read-mostly scenarios, also my newer algorithm is kind of general synchronization mechanism because it works with both memory and hardisk. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-06 14:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <m600pp$lmk$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #2745 |
> "Ramine" wrote in message news:m5vufu$uk6$2@dont-email.me... > Hello, > I have just read the following about Intel TSX: [...] why do you insist on multi-posting? ;^(
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-07 01:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20141207012100.56423912@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #2746 |
On Sat, 6 Dec 2014 14:42:53 -0800 "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> wrote: > > "Ramine" wrote in message news:m5vufu$uk6$2@dont-email.me... > > Hello, > > I have just read the following about Intel TSX: > > [...] > > why do you insist on multi-posting? > > ;^( I believe it is restriction of his news server.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-06 16:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <m60772$47v$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #2747 |
> "Melzzzzz" wrote in message news:20141207012100.56423912@maxa-pc... > > On Sat, 6 Dec 2014 14:42:53 -0800 > > "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> wrote: > > > "Ramine" wrote in message news:m5vufu$uk6$2@dont-email.me... > > > Hello, > > > I have just read the following about Intel TSX: > > > > [...] > > > > why do you insist on multi-posting? > > > > ;^( > I believe it is restriction of his news server. That’s a shame. ;^(
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | comp.programming.threads
csiph-web