I have just read the following about Intel TSX

Path	csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!news.swapon.de!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From	Ramine <ramine@1.1>
Newsgroups	comp.programming
Subject	I have just read the following about Intel TSX
Date	Sat, 06 Dec 2014 17:04:22 -0800
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Lines	27
Message-ID	<m5vuff$uk6$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
Mime-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding	7bit
Injection-Date	Sat, 6 Dec 2014 22:03:27 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info	mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="1ae5840e55f7298da80ae7cf67a723cd"; logging-data="31366"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Uv8TVJ3LUVpG6oT9/sjdq"
User-Agent	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
Cancel-Lock	sha1:2AkH0oISUJccCXMDbPi9ZXojcQI=
Xref	csiph.com comp.programming:4983

Show key headers only | View raw

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.

Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

I have just read the following about Intel TSX Ramine <ramine@1.1> - 2014-12-06 17:04 -0800

csiph-web