Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming > #3913
| From | aminer <aminer@toto.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.programming.threads, comp.programming |
| Subject | Transactional memory and lockfree... |
| Date | 2013-10-10 18:26 -0700 |
| Organization | albasani.net |
| Message-ID | <l379jc$e02$1@news.albasani.net> (permalink) |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
Hello, I have thought more about lockfree algorithms, they look like transactional memory but they only work for small applications such us FIFO queues and stacks and hash tables and Skiplists.. but transactional mmemory is suited also for bigger parallel applications, but i was asking myself a question about the resiliency of the lockfree algorithms, such us if a thread have crached or stopped inside the CAS ,that is also a kind of small critical section, it will not stop the progress of the other threads, this requirement can, in my opinion, be satisfied in lock based algorithms by just using exceptions, cause a thread can have only a some limited problems such as when a memory is full or the disk is full .. so we can use also exceptions to avoid some of those problems and requeue the work in a FIFO queue for example and leave the critical section, so Lock based algorithms are also very interresting cause they can satisfy the requirement of the FIFO fairness and Locks such us scalable Anderson Lock or the MCS lock can also minimize the cache-coherence traffic, this is not the case with the Lockfree traffic, so as i said , the Lock based algorithms coupled with exceptions can satisfy many requirements and can be excellent. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread
Transactional memory and lockfree... aminer <aminer@toto.net> - 2013-10-10 18:26 -0700
csiph-web