Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:12:47 09/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2003 at 10:10:53, Sune Fischer wrote: >On September 03, 2003 at 10:05:05, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>On September 03, 2003 at 09:56:32, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>>>You need to constantly check for abort-fail-high and abort-adjust-alpha >>>>conditions on the other processors. >>> >>>Why can't the parent thread set these flags on the child(ren) threads instead? >> >>Uhhh, how's that going to do anything if the children don't read that flag? > >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? > >-S. >>-- >>GCP Forget "mail boxes". Think: if (tree->stop) then get out of here _now_. tree->stop can be set by _anybody_ but it is in this processor's local memory.
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.