Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: The need to unmake move

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.