Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 05:18:35 01/19/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 19, 2006 at 03:48:34, Tord Romstad wrote: >On January 18, 2006 at 22:26:06, Jay Urbanski wrote: > >>On January 18, 2006 at 17:55:55, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>Executables are heavyweight processes that heavily consume resources and threads >>>are lightweight processes which consume less resources. But a threaded server >>>needs any global variables to have write-access gated with a critical section >>>whereas a global in a spawned server has no effect (since each server is a >>>single process running a single thread of execution). >>> >>>It is better, but much harder, to write a threaded chess engine. >> >> >>Very true but with nearly all processor improvements in the immediate future >>coming from more cores/threads - it will likely be worth the effort to bite the >>bullet and learn to write good threaded code at some point. > >Why? Wouldn't a chess engine using multiple processes and >shared memory be just as fast as a similar program with >multiple threads on a computer with several CPUs (or CPUs >with multiple cores)? I thought the engine using processes >would just consume a bit more memory, and not have any >significant disadvantages apart from that. > >I'm not saying that you are wrong, of course. I am totally >ignorant about this subject, and I ask in order to learn more. > >Tord Dann and Jay are I guess talking about the mp implementation of just sharing the hash table. It's a very cheap way to get some performance benefit, and I am thinking about it as a lazy way out for the time being. Indeed I realize that multi-threaded apps are probably the future. It's just a question of finding the time to do this (and taking this time away from other tasks). Vas
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.