Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 07:19:41 09/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2003 at 10:13:30, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >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. Sorry I don't follow, why do you need to do remote access if there is no change in status of any kind? I only see the need for communication when there is *somthing* to communicate. -S. >-- >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.