comp.programming.threads

Ramine

11/25/2014 11:45:00 PM

On 11/25/2014 2:27 PM, Ramine wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
>
> This time i will speak about my scalable RWLocks and i will
> compare them to the Seqlock.
>
>
> What i don't like in Seqlock , is that it doesn't treat
> correctly the general cases of scenarios that we can have,
> i mean let say that we are in a case scenario that is not
> read mostly and we have many more writes and we don't want

I mean: with many more writers...

> to have starvation and we don't want to have livelock ,
> Seqlock is not suitable for this case scenaio cause it can
> livelock and it can have starvation.. this is why i have invented
> my scalable RWLocks that contain scalable RWLock variants that are
> starvation-free and livelock-free and that are suitable for the general
> scenarios of the read mostly scenario or with the scenarios of many more
> writes, other than that if you look at the source code of my scalable
> RWLocks , you will notice that i am using something
> like this:
>
> ---
> for i:=0 to GetSystemThreadCount-1 do
> begin
> while (FCount1^[i].fcount1<>0)
> do
> begin
> end;
> end;
> ---
>
>
> This part is not only a serial part in the Amdahl law cause
> in a case scenario with more contention, as soon as we transfer some
> of all the cache-lines from the array "FCount1^[i].fcount1", the reader
> threads will still be able to run the reader section in parallel with
> the transfering of those cache-lines from the writer side, so this part
> above will run in parallel with many reader threads that will run the
> reader section, so that makes my scalable RWLocks more scalable.
>
>
>
> You can download my scalable RWLocks from:
>
> https://sites.google.com/site/aminer68/scala...
>
>
>
> Thank you,
> Amien Moulay Ramdane.
>
>
>
>
>
>