Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming > #3875
| From | aminer <aminer@toto.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.programming |
| Subject | About Lockfree also... |
| Date | 2013-10-07 20:43 -0700 |
| Organization | albasani.net |
| Message-ID | <l2vket$59t$2@news.albasani.net> (permalink) |
I will add... Those lockfree FIFO queue algorithms higher the cache-coherency traffic when there is contention, in worst scenarios you can have 1+2+3+4+ ..N = ((N^2+N)/2) or even worse N+N+N+N...N = N^2 cache lines transfers from the memory and those Lockfree FIFO queue algorithms are not FIFO fair , hence you can also have starvation with Lockfree FIFO queue algorithms, and this is not good at all, so what i will advice is to wrap those push() and pop() of your FIFO queue with two Locks that support FIFO fairness to avoid also starvation and that lower the cache-coherence traffic, this is better i think, so you can use for example the Scalable Anderson Lock , the scalable MCS Lock or my scalable distributed Lock for that , that are better also for realtime systems. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
About Lockfree also... aminer <aminer@toto.net> - 2013-10-07 20:43 -0700 Re: About Lockfree also... aminer <aminer@toto.net> - 2013-10-07 21:11 -0700
csiph-web