Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 08:21:16 09/16/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 16, 1999 at 05:07:52, David Blackman wrote: >On September 15, 1999 at 09:00:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: > > >>But it is improving bit by bit. Tim Mann suggested a new hashing scheme that >>is cute for SMP users, as it effectively eliminates the Lock()/UnLock() calls >>without the danger of incorrect hash results. > >This is not at all difficult and i'm pretty sure a few programs have been doing >it for years. It get's a bit harder if you rely on the (shared) hash table to do >detection of repetitions, or to count how many CPUs are currently active below a >given node (some parallel algorithms rely on knowing this). > It's possible, but there are at least a couple of heavily parallel programs that simply don't lock the entries and hope they don't get burned. >But then, lock/unlock are not extremely slow on most modern hardware if you use >inline assembler and avoid using system calls. Maybe a problem for the fast/dumb >brigade. Dave
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.