Author: Tom Likens
Date: 07:19:52 07/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 2004 at 09:13:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 09, 2004 at 08:38:31, Tord Romstad wrote: > >>I am currently writing a chess engine. Parallel search is not among my main >>interests at the moment, but it is not entirely impossible that I will give it >>a try some time in the future. >> >>In order to keep everything as flexible as possible, I would like to design >>my algorithms and data structures in such a way that adding parallel search >>at a later stage is feasible. I understand that I should remove most of my >>global variables and replace them with huge structs containing the same data, >>and use one such struct for each thread. Is there anything else which is >>important to keep in mind? >> >>Tord > > >That's the main issue assuming you are going to use lightweight processes >(threads) which I believe is the best approach. The most thread-specific data >you have, which means less global data, will help performance (modified global >data is not cache-friendly on a SMP box) and simplify testing (since modified >global data requires atomic locks to avoid interleaved update problems). I haven't really looked at Crafty's SMP code, but I'm wondering how painful was it to support both Windows and Linux? I'm familiar with the pthreads model used under Unix, but haven't a clue about the equivalent code for Windows. --tom
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.