Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:22:20 07/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 2004 at 10:19:52, Tom Likens wrote: >On July 09, 2004 at 09:13:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 09, 2004 at 08:38:31, Tord Romstad wrote: >> >>>I am currently writing a chess engine. Parallel search is not among my main >>>interests at the moment, but it is not entirely impossible that I will give it >>>a try some time in the future. >>> >>>In order to keep everything as flexible as possible, I would like to design >>>my algorithms and data structures in such a way that adding parallel search >>>at a later stage is feasible. I understand that I should remove most of my >>>global variables and replace them with huge structs containing the same data, >>>and use one such struct for each thread. Is there anything else which is >>>important to keep in mind? >>> >>>Tord >> >> >>That's the main issue assuming you are going to use lightweight processes >>(threads) which I believe is the best approach. The most thread-specific data >>you have, which means less global data, will help performance (modified global >>data is not cache-friendly on a SMP box) and simplify testing (since modified >>global data requires atomic locks to avoid interleaved update problems). > >I haven't really looked at Crafty's SMP code, but I'm wondering how painful >was it to support both Windows and Linux? I'm familiar with the pthreads >model used under Unix, but haven't a clue about the equivalent code for >Windows. > > >--tom Wasn't hard. Windows uses different system call names. IE no pthread_create(), but that's all. And it is easily handled by conditional compilation in one place.
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.