Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 14:11:12 08/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 18, 2003 at 16:24:09, Sune Fischer wrote: >If I cared about simplicity I would not be going parallel, I want performance! >:) Well if you're going for "real" parallel, that's great. If you're only trying to do "kind of" parallel, then I don't think the millisecond it costs to start up a couple of threads before a search is going to hurt performance that much. I think we're talking about different things though. I'm only talking about starting up threads for each root move, so maybe 35-40 per iteration, and never more than 2 or 4 at a time. If your approach means that you would have to be constantly starting threads for each node, then your approach is better of course :) >Yes this is what I need, do you think I want to be stuck in windows forever? :) Well, if you only need those simple operations, then it would probably help performance. That would mean non-portability via Windows functions or assembler. It probably wouldn't be too bad to write a version for Windows (or just use the Interlocked* functions) and then write a handful of assembler routines for linux. Mutexes/etc. aren't terribly slow in my experience, and will be tuned for efficiency, but there is some overhead that can't really be avoided. I imagine there would be hardly any measurable overhead using the Interlocked* functions or the assembly that they convert to (cmov or whatever).
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.