Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 07:13:30 09/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2003 at 10:10:53, Sune Fischer wrote: >What I mean is, that since communication between threads is expensive it is >better to keep it to a minimum, obviously. > >Hence it is more efficient for the tread that discoveres something new to >'message' the other threads when that (rare) event happens, then for the other >threads to check for new 'messages' at *every* node. > >Of course the message should be delivered in the child threads local mailbox, >with low latency. > >Or am I missing something? Yes. To discover whether it has happened, you need score updates from the other processors anyway. You end up doing remote memory access whatever you solution you try. -- GCP
This page took 0.02 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.