Author: Tom Likens
Date: 20:05:41 07/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 2004 at 10:22:20, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 09, 2004 at 10:19:52, Tom Likens wrote: > >>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 > > >Wasn't hard. Windows uses different system call names. IE no pthread_create(), >but that's all. And it is easily handled by conditional compilation in one >place. Thanks for the reply Bob. It's definitely on my ever-lengthening TODO list. regards, --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.