Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:13:46 09/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2003 at 10:48:31, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On September 03, 2003 at 10:19:41, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>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. > >You answer your own question already. There continuesly is something to >communicate. Not if you do it right. There is _occasionally_ something to communicate. Just split at the root and see how much communication is needed... > >>-S. >>>-- >>>GCP
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.