- About scalable parallel sorting algorithms.. - 1 Update
- Here is my new scalable algorithms inventions.. - 1 Update
- Read again my final corrected post about more about my new monotheistic religion.. - 1 Update
- 8.8 billion humans in 2100: towards an imminent decline of the world population? - 1 Update
- More about my new monotheistic religion.. - 1 Update
| aminer68@gmail.com: Aug 02 02:50PM -0700 Hello, About scalable parallel sorting algorithms.. I just written before the following about my just new inventions: ------------------------------------------------------------------- Here is my new scalable algorithms inventions.. As you know i am a white arab, and i think i am smart like genius since i have invented "many" scalable algorithms, and my just new invention is a scalable sorting library that is so powerful, since it uses my new invention of a fully "scalable" Threadpool engine and it uses my new invention of a fully scalable merging algorithm. -------------------------------------------------------------------- But you have to notice that in cluster computing, the challenge is to design a highly scalable sorting algorithm that uses minimal communication and maximizes overlap between computation and communication, and uses memory efficiently, since i think in cluster computing the communication between computers in a cluster is so expensive, but since my inventions above of scalable algorithms run in Directory-based coherency in NUMA systems , so i don't have to minimize communication like in cluster computing. Here is my writing about Snooping vs. Directory-based coherency: Performance Scalability of a Multi-core Web Server Read more here: https://www.cse.wustl.edu/ANCS/slides/Bryan%20Veal%20ANCS%20Presentation.pdf As you notice above that the Address bus saturation causes poor scaling! And the Address Bus carries requests and responses for data, called snoops, and more caches mean more sources and more destinations for snoops that is causing the poor scaling. So to solve the problem of poor scalability above, you have to use Directory-based coherence that is a mechanism to handle Cache coherence problem in Distributed shared memory (DSM) a.k.a. Non-Uniform Memory Access (NUMA). And you have to know that Directory-Based Cache Coherence is scalable. Read more here about it: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/academic/class/15418-s19/www/lectures/13_directory.pdf So you have to choose Directory-Based Cache Coherence that is scalable by using NUMA systems. And you have to know that data centers are now typically using NUMA multicore servers that provide "scalable" system performance and "cost-effective" property and that provide Directory-Based Cache Coherence that is scalable. Read more here: https://books.google.ca/books?id=3iy6BQAAQBAJ&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=NUMA+systems+are+cost+effective&source=bl&ots=zXHJZ7oqqW&sig=ACfU3U24MbzxiuPXJB6W6p0JCtkl9hxCHQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjX9o_gubTqAhVBc98KHU0WDJ8Q6AEwCnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=NUMA%20systems%20are%20cost%20effective&f=false Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| aminer68@gmail.com: Aug 02 01:43PM -0700 Hello, Here is my new scalable algorithms inventions.. As you know i am a white arab, and i think i am smart like genius since i have invented "many" scalable algorithms, and my just new invention is a scalable sorting library that is so powerful, since it uses my new invention of a fully "scalable" Threadpool engine and it uses my new invention of a fully scalable merging algorithm. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| aminer68@gmail.com: Aug 02 11:55AM -0700 Hello, Read again my final corrected post about more about my new monotheistic religion.. I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms.. So now you are understanding more my new monotheistic religion, here it is: Since we can not distinguish between the humans that are descendant from Adam and Eve and the humans that are descendant from monkeys, so we have to know how to be tolerance and at the same time believing in the one that we call God and ask him for help and try at best to be righteous, since you have to also fear this one that we call God. Other than that here is my other logical proof: I think that logically we have not to practice the monotheistic religions, because logically we don't know which monotheistic religion is truth, and since we don't know which religion is truth, we have not to practice monotheistic religions. Also i believe since the descendants of Adam and Eve have been cursed, we can easily notice that the Bible and Koran contain scientific errors, because i think that those errors on the Bible and Koran are part of this curse from God, because i think even the Bible and Koran have been cursed. Also i think that the one that we call God has not created the universe, since how can he make animals suffer ? so there is a logical contradiction, so i think that the one that we call God has not created the universe, second, humans are not all descendant from Adam and Eve, since there is other humans that are descendant from the monkeys, so there is no curse from the one that we call God on those humans that are descendant from the monkeys, but there is a curse from God on the humans that are descendant from Adam and Eve(read here: https://bible.org/seriespage/lesson-10-curse-and-covering-genesis-316-24). More about the one that we call God and the door to the other world of the one that we call God.. I think that the one that we call God exist, and there is another world there, and if you have noticed they can come to us from a "door", but we have to find this door and open it and go to the other world of the one that we call God, this is the key, and after that i think that we have to become much more smart so that we can comprehend what is behind this door, perhaps there is other extraterrestrials that have found this door and have opened it and they are behind in the other world of the one that we call God. Here is the door , i think it is related to how human consciousness is made(look at outer body experience): About God.. You will say that God doesn't exist, but read the following(read especially the outer body experience of the 57-year old man below): "A University of Southampton study has revealed that people could still experience consciousness for up to three minutes after the heart stops beating. The study interviewed 2,060 patients from Austria, USA and the UK who have all suffered a cardiac arrest. The Express reports that 40% could recall some form of awareness after being pronounced clinically dead. One 57-year old man seemed to confirm an outer body experience by recalling everything that was going on around him with eerie accuracy while he was technically dead." Read more here: https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/516195/university-southampton-study-science-life-death-hell-heaven And read the following: Does God exists ? You will say that God doesn't exist, but read the following(read especially about the following study where two per cent exhibited full awareness with explicit recall of "seeing" and "hearing" events – or out-of-body ) Read more here: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/life-after-death-largest-ever-study-provides-evidence-that-out-of-body-and-near-death-experiences-9780195.html About smartness and the meaning.. So that to understand what is smartness we have to understand what is the meaning.. I think that there is still complex problems that actual high level smartness of humans can not comprehend, that means that they don't make sense or meaning to the actual high level smartness of humans, so they are like hidden to us, perhaps like extraterrestrial beings that have become complex problems or like God that is a complex problem, thus we can not comprehend them, since as i said you have to make a logical difference between the complex and the difficult, since i think that our actual high level human smartness is capable to understand the difficult that is not complex and with the divide and conquer methodology it is able to understand some complex problems, but i think that there still remain problems that are complex and that the actual high level smartness of humans is unable to comprehend with the divide and conquer methodology. Read the rest of my previous thoughts to understand: More about the smartness problem.. I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms.. As you have noticed i have just spoken more about what is smartness(read below about it).. But i think that there is something happening, since i think that we have been "lucky" that we have encountered complex problems that have been solved by high level smartness by the divide and conquer methodology , but i think that we have to ask a question of: if there is still problems that can not be solved by high level smartness of today humans by the divide and conquer methodology? Read the rest of my previous thoughts: More about what is human smartness.. I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms.. I think to be able to understand human smartness, you have to understand the logical difference between what is the complex and what is the difficult, this is one of the most important thing, because when you look at the definition of complex it says: Here is the definition of "complex" in the dictionary: "Something that is complex has many different parts, and is therefore often difficult to understand." Read the dictionary here to notice it: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/complex So as you are noticing that complex doesn't mean difficult, because complex has "many" different parts, and you have to understand my writing about Lock-free algorithms, since i said that they are "difficult" even if they are not complex, since even they are not complex, you have to be smart to be able to see the paths or the parts that are hidden to be able to invent them, this is why you have to be smart to be able to invent a Lock-free bounded stack or Lock-free bounded queue. So now you are understanding that high level smartness doesn't start to think the complex, but it starts with the difficult that is not complex and it uses the divide and conquer methodology so that to grow and be able to understand the complex.. Read my following previous thoughts to understand: In my previous posts about my inventions of Lock-free algorithms, i said that inventing Lock-free algorithms is difficult and i have explained why, and there is a difference between saying it is difficult and saying it is complex, read the following from Dr. Dobb's to notice: "Lock-Free Algorithms and Data Structures. Lock-free algorithms address the issues raised by locks, but bring their own set of problems. Their use in the industry is still fairly new. At their core, they rely on atomic operations at the hardware level. It is very hard to design and implement lock-free algorithms properly because the building blocks are very small; when you compose them, the emerging behavior is not trivial to analyze." Read more here: https://www.drdobbs.com/parallel/concurrent-programming-with-chain-lockin/240149442?pgno=1 So notice that he is saying that it is "very hard" and he is explaining why, and he is in accordance with my writing, read it again carefully: More analysis of Lock-free algorithms.. I have just looked at the following invention of a Lock-free bounded queue by the following PhDs: Peter Pirkelbauer that is a PhD in computer science Here he is: http://pirkelbauer.com/cv_peter_pirkelbauer.html and by Reed Milewicz Postdoctoral Appointee, Sandia National Laboratories Here he is: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=PzG-VUAAAAAJ&hl=en Here is there paper of there Portable Lock-free Bounded Queue invention: https://rmmilewi.github.io/files/lockfreequeue16.pdf I think that there Lock-free Bounded Queue invention has a disadvantage , it is that it is too "complex", so it is not good , this is why i have just invented my following Lock-free Bounbed Queue and a Lock-free Bounded Stack that are simple to reason about and are much less complex than the above invention: About software fault tolerance and reliability, read again.. Read the following interesting document about Fault-tolerant computing: http://web.cs.ucla.edu/~rennels/article98.pdf I will soon provide you with my following new inventions that are my new Lock-free algorithms that support software fault tolerance and reliability in a form of Thread-killing Immunity, that means any thread forcefully killed in the system won't delay other threads, and in a form of Signal Immunity and in a form of Pre-emption tolerance and convoy-avoidance and in a form of Priority Inversion Immunity etc. Read my following thoughts to notice it: About my new inventions of Lock-free algorithms.. I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms and there implementations, and today i will talk more about Lock-free algorithms.. I have previously invented a fully Lock-free bounded LIFO stack algorithm, but i have just invented a fully Lock-free bounded FIFO queue algorithm and a fully Lock-free bounded limited priority queue, but can we ask the question of: Do we have to be really smart to be able to invent those Lock-free algorithms ? I think that we have to be smart to be able to invent them, because when you are inventing them you have to be able from the many characteristics of the Lock-free algorithm and the restrictive compare-and-swap (CAS) and/or double-length CAS (DCAS) to be able to invent them, so you are too restricted or too constrained and it makes the job of inventing those Lock-free algorithms difficult, this is why you have to be smart, and as you have noticed i have first invented a Lock-free bounded LIFO stack algorithm that is based on an almost(very nearly) Lock-free bounded FIFO queue, and this almost Lock-free bounded FIFO queue of mine has the following advantages(and notice that it only doesn't support Thread-killing Immunity, that means any thread forcefully killed in the system won't delay other threads): - Signal Immunity: The C and C++Standards prohibit signals or asynchronous interrupts from calling many system routines such as malloc. If the interrupt calls malloc at the same time with an interrupted thread, that could cause deadlock. With my algorithms, there's no such problem anymore: Threads can freely interleave execution. - Priority Inversion Immunity: Priority inversion occurs when a low-priority thread holds a lock to a mutex needed by a high- priority thread. Such tricky conflicts must be resolved by the OS kernel. - Pre-emption tolerant and they are good at convoy-avoidance. - Starvation-free. - And for k number of threads in the system (of my almost Lock- free FIFO queue or my almost Lock-free FIFO priority queue or my almost Lock-free LIFO stack), my almost Lock-free FIFO queue or my almost Lock-free FIFO priority queue or my almost Lock-free LIFO stack have a system latency of O(q + s*sqrt(k) and an individual latency of O(k(q + s*sqrt(k)), but my algorithms are of the SCU(0,1) Class of Algorithms, so under scheduling conditions which approximate those found in commercial hardware architectures, there system latency is O(sqrt(k)) and there individual latency is O(k*sqrt(k)), read more below to understand more. You can read about them and download them from my website here: https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/lockfree-bounded-lifo-stack-and-fifo-queue But i will show you soon my inventions of a fully Lock-free bounded LIFO stack algorithm and of a fully Lock-free bounded FIFO queue algorithm and of a fully Lock-free bounded limited priority queue algorithm. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| aminer68@gmail.com: Aug 02 11:29AM -0700 Hello, 8.8 billion humans in 2100: towards an imminent decline of the world population? Read more here: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.leparisien.fr%2Fsociete%2F8-8-milliards-d-humains-en-2100-vers-un-declin-imminent-de-la-population-mondiale-15-07-2020-8352897.php Thank you, Amine Moulaya Ramdane. |
| aminer68@gmail.com: Aug 02 11:24AM -0700 Hello, More about my new monotheistic religion.. I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms.. So now you are understanding more my new monotheistic religion, here it is: Since we can not distinguish between the humans that are descendant from Adam and Eve and the humans that are descendant from monkeys, so we have to know how to be tolerance and at the same believing in the one that we call God and ask him for help and try at best to be righteous, since you have also to also fear this one that we call God. Other than that here is my other logical proof: I think that logically we have not to practice the monotheistic religions, because logically we don't know which monotheistic religion is truth, and since we don't know which religion is truth, we have not to practice monotheistic religions. Also i believe since the descendants of Adam and Eve have been cursed, we can easily notice that the Bible and Koran contains scientific errors, because i think that those errors on the Bible and Koran are part of this curse from God, because i think even the Bible and Koran have been cursed. Also i think that the one that we call God has not created the universe, since how can he make animals suffer ? so there is a logical contradiction, so i think that the one that we call God has not created the universe, second, humans are not all descendant from Adam and Eve, since there is other humans that are descendant from the monkeys, so there is no curse from the one that we call God on those humans that are descendant from the monkeys, but there is a curse from God on the humans that are descendant from Adam and Eve(read here: https://bible.org/seriespage/lesson-10-curse-and-covering-genesis-316-24). More about the one that we call God and the door to the other world of the one that we call God.. I think that the one that we call God exist, and there is another world there, and if you have noticed they can come to us from a "door", but we have to find this door and open it and go to the other world of the one that we call God, this is the key, and after that i think that we have to become much more smart so that we can comprehend what is behind this door, perhaps there is other extraterrestrials that have found this door and have opened it and they are behind in the other world of the one that we call God. Here is the door , i think it is related to how human consciousness is made(look at outer body experience): About God.. You will say that God doesn't exist, but read the following(read especially the outer body experience of the 57-year old man below): "A University of Southampton study has revealed that people could still experience consciousness for up to three minutes after the heart stops beating. The study interviewed 2,060 patients from Austria, USA and the UK who have all suffered a cardiac arrest. The Express reports that 40% could recall some form of awareness after being pronounced clinically dead. One 57-year old man seemed to confirm an outer body experience by recalling everything that was going on around him with eerie accuracy while he was technically dead." Read more here: https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/516195/university-southampton-study-science-life-death-hell-heaven And read the following: Does God exists ? You will say that God doesn't exist, but read the following(read especially about the following study where two per cent exhibited full awareness with explicit recall of "seeing" and "hearing" events – or out-of-body ) Read more here: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/life-after-death-largest-ever-study-provides-evidence-that-out-of-body-and-near-death-experiences-9780195.html About smartness and the meaning.. So that to understand what is smartness we have to understand what is the meaning.. I think that there is still complex problems that actual high level smartness of humans can not comprehend, that means that they don't make sense or meaning to the actual high level smartness of humans, so they are like hidden to us, perhaps like extraterrestrial beings that have become complex problems or like God that is a complex problem, thus we can not comprehend them, since as i said you have to make a logical difference between the complex and the difficult, since i think that our actual high level human smartness is capable to understand the difficult that is not complex and with the divide and conquer methodology it is able to understand some complex problems, but i think that there still remain problems that are complex and that the actual high level smartness of humans is unable to comprehend with the divide and conquer methodology. Read the rest of my previous thoughts to understand: More about the smartness problem.. I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms.. As you have noticed i have just spoken more about what is smartness(read below about it).. But i think that there is something happening, since i think that we have been "lucky" that we have encountered complex problems that have been solved by high level smartness by the divide and conquer methodology , but i think that we have to ask a question of: if there is still problems that can not be solved by high level smartness of today humans by the divide and conquer methodology? Read the rest of my previous thoughts: More about what is human smartness.. I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms.. I think to be able to understand human smartness, you have to understand the logical difference between what is the complex and what is the difficult, this is one of the most important thing, because when you look at the definition of complex it says: Here is the definition of "complex" in the dictionary: "Something that is complex has many different parts, and is therefore often difficult to understand." Read the dictionary here to notice it: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/complex So as you are noticing that complex doesn't mean difficult, because complex has "many" different parts, and you have to understand my writing about Lock-free algorithms, since i said that they are "difficult" even if they are not complex, since even they are not complex, you have to be smart to be able to see the paths or the parts that are hidden to be able to invent them, this is why you have to be smart to be able to invent a Lock-free bounded stack or Lock-free bounded queue. So now you are understanding that high level smartness doesn't start to think the complex, but it starts with the difficult that is not complex and it uses the divide and conquer methodology so that to grow and be able to understand the complex.. Read my following previous thoughts to understand: In my previous posts about my inventions of Lock-free algorithms, i said that inventing Lock-free algorithms is difficult and i have explained why, and there is a difference between saying it is difficult and saying it is complex, read the following from Dr. Dobb's to notice: "Lock-Free Algorithms and Data Structures. Lock-free algorithms address the issues raised by locks, but bring their own set of problems. Their use in the industry is still fairly new. At their core, they rely on atomic operations at the hardware level. It is very hard to design and implement lock-free algorithms properly because the building blocks are very small; when you compose them, the emerging behavior is not trivial to analyze." Read more here: https://www.drdobbs.com/parallel/concurrent-programming-with-chain-lockin/240149442?pgno=1 So notice that he is saying that it is "very hard" and he is explaining why, and he is in accordance with my writing, read it again carefully: More analysis of Lock-free algorithms.. I have just looked at the following invention of a Lock-free bounded queue by the following PhDs: Peter Pirkelbauer that is a PhD in computer science Here he is: http://pirkelbauer.com/cv_peter_pirkelbauer.html and by Reed Milewicz Postdoctoral Appointee, Sandia National Laboratories Here he is: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=PzG-VUAAAAAJ&hl=en Here is there paper of there Portable Lock-free Bounded Queue invention: https://rmmilewi.github.io/files/lockfreequeue16.pdf I think that there Lock-free Bounded Queue invention has a disadvantage , it is that it is too "complex", so it is not good , this is why i have just invented my following Lock-free Bounbed Queue and a Lock-free Bounded Stack that are simple to reason about and are much less complex than the above invention: About software fault tolerance and reliability, read again.. Read the following interesting document about Fault-tolerant computing: http://web.cs.ucla.edu/~rennels/article98.pdf I will soon provide you with my following new inventions that are my new Lock-free algorithms that support software fault tolerance and reliability in a form of Thread-killing Immunity, that means any thread forcefully killed in the system won't delay other threads, and in a form of Signal Immunity and in a form of Pre-emption tolerance and convoy-avoidance and in a form of Priority Inversion Immunity etc. Read my following thoughts to notice it: About my new inventions of Lock-free algorithms.. I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms and there implementations, and today i will talk more about Lock-free algorithms.. I have previously invented a fully Lock-free bounded LIFO stack algorithm, but i have just invented a fully Lock-free bounded FIFO queue algorithm and a fully Lock-free bounded limited priority queue, but can we ask the question of: Do we have to be really smart to be able to invent those Lock-free algorithms ? I think that we have to be smart to be able to invent them, because when you are inventing them you have to be able from the many characteristics of the Lock-free algorithm and the restrictive compare-and-swap (CAS) and/or double-length CAS (DCAS) to be able to invent them, so you are too restricted or too constrained and it makes the job of inventing those Lock-free algorithms difficult, this is why you have to be smart, and as you have noticed i have first invented a Lock-free bounded LIFO stack algorithm that is based on an almost(very nearly) Lock-free bounded FIFO queue, and this almost Lock-free bounded FIFO queue of mine has the following advantages(and notice that it only doesn't support Thread-killing Immunity, that means any thread forcefully killed in the system won't delay other threads): - Signal Immunity: The C and C++Standards prohibit signals or asynchronous interrupts from calling many system routines such as malloc. If the interrupt calls malloc at the same time with an interrupted thread, that could cause deadlock. With my algorithms, there's no such problem anymore: Threads can freely interleave execution. - Priority Inversion Immunity: Priority inversion occurs when a low-priority thread holds a lock to a mutex needed by a high- priority thread. Such tricky conflicts must be resolved by the OS kernel. - Pre-emption tolerant and they are good at convoy-avoidance. - Starvation-free. - And for k number of threads in the system (of my almost Lock- free FIFO queue or my almost Lock-free FIFO priority queue or my almost Lock-free LIFO stack), my almost Lock-free FIFO queue or my almost Lock-free FIFO priority queue or my almost Lock-free LIFO stack have a system latency of O(q + s*sqrt(k) and an individual latency of O(k(q + s*sqrt(k)), but my algorithms are of the SCU(0,1) Class of Algorithms, so under scheduling conditions which approximate those found in commercial hardware architectures, there system latency is O(sqrt(k)) and there individual latency is O(k*sqrt(k)), read more below to understand more. You can read about them and download them from my website here: https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/lockfree-bounded-lifo-stack-and-fifo-queue But i will show you soon my inventions of a fully Lock-free bounded LIFO stack algorithm and of a fully Lock-free bounded FIFO queue algorithm and of a fully Lock-free bounded limited priority queue algorithm. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.programming.threads+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment