In our previous episode, Jonas Maebe said:
> > I use own lockfree FIFO http://www.emadar.com/fpc/lockfree.htm to
> > distribute task between threads
> > its much faster and well scaling on multicore.
>
> Note that it won't work as is on non-x86 machines, because it's
> missing memory barriers
On 19 Sep 2009, at 10:36, Micha Nelissen wrote:
Jonas Maebe wrote:
on x86 too). Atomic operations are not memory barriers by
themselves, and the fact that you perform an atomic operation does
not mean that afterwards all cpu's will immediately see this new
value.
Explain? Isn't the poin
Jonas Maebe wrote:
on x86 too). Atomic operations are not memory barriers by themselves,
and the fact that you perform an atomic operation does not mean that
afterwards all cpu's will immediately see this new value.
Explain? Isn't the point of an atomic update that it doesn't matter
whether t
Helmut Hartl pisze:
-Original message-
From: Dariusz Mazur
Sent: Fri 18-09-2009 16:24
To: FPC-Pascal users discussions ;
Subject: Re: [fpc-pascal] getting started with threads
David Emerson pisze:
I am getting started with threads (linux/cthreads) and I'm very happy so
-Original message-
From: Dariusz Mazur
Sent: Fri 18-09-2009 16:24
To: FPC-Pascal users discussions ;
Subject: Re: [fpc-pascal] getting started with threads
> David Emerson pisze:
> > I am getting started with threads (linux/cthreads) and I'm very happy so
> > fa
On 18 Sep 2009, at 23:04, Dariusz Mazur wrote:
But is this optimal solution:
procedure SysThreadSwitch;
begin
Sleep(0);
end;
WinThreadManager.ThreadSwitch :=...@systhreadswitch;
procedure ThreadSwitch;
begin
CurrentTM.ThreadSwitch;
end;
We have 2 unnecessary invoke functio
Jonas Maebe pisze:
On 18 Sep 2009, at 21:30, Dariusz Mazur wrote:
On 18 Sep 2009, at 16:24, Dariusz Mazur wrote:
I use own lockfree FIFO http://www.emadar.com/fpc/lockfree.htm to
distribute task between threads
its much faster and well scaling on multicore.
Note that it won't work as is
On 18 Sep 2009, at 21:30, Dariusz Mazur wrote:
On 18 Sep 2009, at 16:24, Dariusz Mazur wrote:
I use own lockfree FIFO http://www.emadar.com/fpc/lockfree.htm to
distribute task between threads
its much faster and well scaling on multicore.
Note that it won't work as is on non-x86 machines
Jonas Maebe pisze:
On 18 Sep 2009, at 16:24, Dariusz Mazur wrote:
I use own lockfree FIFO http://www.emadar.com/fpc/lockfree.htm to
distribute task between threads
its much faster and well scaling on multicore.
Note that it won't work as is on non-x86 machines, because it's
missing memory
Jonas Maebe schrieb:
>
> On 18 Sep 2009, at 16:24, Dariusz Mazur wrote:
>
>> I use own lockfree FIFO http://www.emadar.com/fpc/lockfree.htm to
>> distribute task between threads
>> its much faster and well scaling on multicore.
>
> Note that it won't work as is on non-x86 machines, because it's
On 18 Sep 2009, at 16:24, Dariusz Mazur wrote:
I use own lockfree FIFO http://www.emadar.com/fpc/lockfree.htm to
distribute task between threads
its much faster and well scaling on multicore.
Note that it won't work as is on non-x86 machines, because it's
missing memory barriers (and I th
David Emerson pisze:
I am getting started with threads (linux/cthreads) and I'm very happy so
far, but unsure of the best way to tackle my situation.
I have a program that needs to perform about 10,000 independent tasks,
which usually involve waiting for I/O; thus it makes sense to use
severa
David Emerson schreef:
I am getting started with threads (linux/cthreads) and I'm very happy so
far, but unsure of the best way to tackle my situation.
I have a program that needs to perform about 10,000 independent tasks,
which usually involve waiting for I/O; thus it makes sense to use
seve
Nice to see you posted this. Love, Dad
On Thursday 17 September 2009 06:07:48 pm David Emerson wrote:
> I am getting started with threads (linux/cthreads) and I'm very happy so
> far, but unsure of the best way to tackle my situation.
>
> I have a program that needs to perform about 10,000 indepe
I am getting started with threads (linux/cthreads) and I'm very happy so
far, but unsure of the best way to tackle my situation.
I have a program that needs to perform about 10,000 independent tasks,
which usually involve waiting for I/O; thus it makes sense to use
several threads so that some
15 matches
Mail list logo
