Author: Tony Werten
Date: 01:54:53 09/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2003 at 10:44:11, Sune Fischer wrote: >On September 03, 2003 at 10:35:11, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>On September 03, 2003 at 10:26:19, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>>>What is your point? >>> >>>Heh :) >>> >>>You said (remote) checking for fail_high conditions at every node was required, >>>and I disagree. >> >>I never say 'at every node'. > >You said constantly, then I don't know what you mean by that. > >>Each time you get a subtree score, you must send out the score update to >>all processors, or store it locally and rely on remote processors to check >>it in your memory. >> >>Either way, you need remote accesses. >> >>Got it now? > >This is an entirely different matter, you don't get subtree scores "constantly". > >And I still say you only have to access when there is something to communicate. > >If you just quietly exit the subtree on a fail low, I see no need for >communication. I suddenly see the point you're missing. What you describe works correct on a dual machine only. Think about a 4 processor machine. processor 1 and 2 are running. processor 3 runs and starts a new thread on proc. 4 Now proc 4 is done, proc 3 get's this (ie he get's a done message, with score ) But how are proc 1 and 2 going to know that 4 is available ? Tony > >-S. >>-- >>GCP
This page took 0.01 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.