soft and program: comp.programming.threads - 25 new messages in 4 topics

comp.programming.threads
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.programming.threads?hl=en

comp.programming.threads@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* NOTHING is complex or difficul... - 16 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.programming.threads/t/8f4050fcf0ebf6ae?hl=en
* Naz - Computers and Laptops - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.programming.threads/t/7a33be96364c7db7?hl=en
* Spinlocks - trouble with speed - thanks - 6 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.programming.threads/t/9f5e34251ccf45e3?hl=en
* About "NOTHING is complex or difficul" - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.programming.threads/t/2ffef796d1b92cde?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: NOTHING is complex or difficul...
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.programming.threads/t/8f4050fcf0ebf6ae?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 16 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 1 2009 11:58 pm
From: Amine

On Aug 1, 9:36 pm, David Schwartz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
> On Aug 1, 5:54 pm, Amine <ami...@colba.net> wrote:
>
> Are you mentally defective in some way? Seriously.

On Aug 2, 2:14 am, "Chris M. Thomasson" <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
> "Amine" <ami...@colba.net> wrote in message

> news:ece31234-ccb3-4a9d-8f65-6a086b6f64a6@c14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...> David Schwartz wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> Spinlocks are phenomenally complex. You have to have a very
> >> deep understanding of the CPU internals to get them right.

> > I say that: *NOTHING* is complex or difficult

> [...]

> Not even the mysteries of the universe? Now, go and learn all the answers
> and come back and tell us all about it. Simple.

I have gave you the proof and it does WORK my dear Chris M.
Thomasson.

Now let's take as an example all the process of the universe.

Now if you look at the universe you will say that this THING
is complex: right ?

But this affirmation is still SUBJECTIVE: it needs more
UNDERSTANDING to become the TRUTH. And as soon
as it become the TRUTH , this thing that we call the
universe will be become *SIMPLE* and *EASY*.

Let us look at the big PROCESS of the universe like a
GRAPH with state and transitions, now if you are trying
to understand all the GRAPH , and you have STILL not
understand the GRAPH , this will not make all
the GRAPH complex and difficul , it's just a SUBJECTIVE
VIEW OF all the GRAPH: just a false IMPRESSION , and
this subjective VIEW does STILL NOT make the thing that
is all the UNIVERSE complex or difficult.

Now as soon as you understand COMPLETLY the GRAPH:
that will be the OBJECTIVE view of all the GRAPH and this
will FINALLY make this thing that we call all the universe
SIMPLE and EASY, and this final process of understanding
is the one that matter and it is the REAL TRUTH.

And the proof - that i gave you - of the follow affirmation:

"*NOTHING* is complex or difficult"

Does work.

Do you undertand now or you want more my dear Chris M. Thomasson :)

Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.

== 2 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 2 2009 12:52 am
From: "Chris M. Thomasson"

"Amine" <aminer@colba.net> wrote in message
news:4945bd6b-7b8c-431a-b8e4-e4bb0471598f@w41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 2, 2:14 am, "Chris M. Thomasson" <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
> > "Amine" <ami...@colba.net> wrote in message
> >
> > news:ece31234-ccb3-4a9d-8f65-6a086b6f64a6@c14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...>
> > David Schwartz wrote:
> > >> [...]
> > >> Spinlocks are phenomenally complex. You have to have a very
> > >> deep understanding of the CPU internals to get them right.
> >
> > > I say that: *NOTHING* is complex or difficult
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Not even the mysteries of the universe? Now, go and learn all the
> > answers
> > and come back and tell us all about it. Simple.

> I have gave you the proof and it does WORK my dear Chris M. Thomasson.

> Now let's take as an example all the process of the universe.

> Now if you look at the unniverse you will say that this THING
> is complex: right ?

[...]

Go ahead and learn exactly how the Universe works. Once your done, come back
and educate the world's scientists. They will be happy and eager to learn
from you.

== 3 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 2 2009 1:03 am
From: "Chris M. Thomasson"

"Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:vAbdm.82263$zq1.342@newsfe22.iad...
> "Amine" <aminer@colba.net> wrote in message
> news:4945bd6b-7b8c-431a-b8e4-e4bb0471598f@w41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 2, 2:14 am, "Chris M. Thomasson" <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>> > "Amine" <ami...@colba.net> wrote in message
>> >
>> > news:ece31234-ccb3-4a9d-8f65-6a086b6f64a6@c14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...>
>> > David Schwartz wrote:
>> > >> [...]
>> > >> Spinlocks are phenomenally complex. You have to have a very
>> > >> deep understanding of the CPU internals to get them right.
>> >
>> > > I say that: *NOTHING* is complex or difficult
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >
>> > Not even the mysteries of the universe? Now, go and learn all the
>> > answers
>> > and come back and tell us all about it. Simple.
>
>> I have gave you the proof and it does WORK my dear Chris M. Thomasson.
>
>> Now let's take as an example all the process of the universe.
>
>> Now if you look at the unniverse you will say that this THING
>> is complex: right ?
>
> [...]
>
> Go ahead and learn exactly how the Universe works. Once your done, come
> back and educate the world's scientists. They will be happy and eager to
> learn from you.

Even if you completely understand the Universe, well, that simply does not
mean it's makeup is not complex. It just means that you understand a complex
process.

For instance, I understand non-blocking algorithms, and I assert that they
are complex regardless of how deep of an understanding I have of them.

== 4 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 2 2009 1:11 am
From: Amine

Now let me make clear something:

When you say something like: "this thing is SIMPLE"

You have the presence of two things:

Reality = Brain(with the conscience) + universe outside the brain

Can you tell the THING is SIMPLE without the presence of the
Conscience ?

The presence of the conscience is a NECESSITY to be able
to tell that something is SIMPLE

It's the conscience of the thing that makes us judje that it's SIMPLE.

Now continue to read and you will understand:

> "Amine" <ami...@colba.net> wrote in message
> news:ece31234-ccb3-4a9d-8f65-6a086b6f64a6@c14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...> David Schwartz wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> Spinlocks are phenomenally complex. You have to have a very
> >> deep understanding of the CPU internals to get them right.
> > I say that: *NOTHING* is complex or difficult
> [...]
> Not even the mysteries of the universe? Now, go and learn all the answers
> and come back and tell us all about it. Simple.

I have gave you the proof and it does WORK my dear Chris M.
Thomasson.

Now let's take as an example all the process of the universe.

Now if you look at the universe you will say that this THING
is complex: right ?

Let us look at the big PROCESS of the universe like a
GRAPH with states and transitions, now if you are trying
to understand all the GRAPH , and you have STILL not
understand the GRAPH , this will not make all
the GRAPH complex and difficul , it's just a SUBJECTIVE
VIEW OF all the GRAPH: just a false IMPRESSION , and
this subjective VIEW does STILL NOT make the thing that
is all the UNIVERSE complex or difficult.

And the proof - that i gave you - of the follow affirmation:

"*NOTHING* is complex or difficult"

Does work.

Do you undertand now or you want more my dear Chris M. Thomasson :)

Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.

== 5 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 2 2009 1:28 am
From: Amine

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> Even if you completely understand the Universe, well, that simply does not
> mean it's makeup is not complex. It just means that you understand a complex
> process.

When you say something like: "this thing is SIMPLE"

You have the presence of two things:

Reality = Brain(with the conscience) + universe outside the brain

Can you tell the THING is SIMPLE or ... without the presence of the
Conscience ?

The presence of the conscience is a NECESSITY to be able
to tell that something is SIMPLE

It's the conscience of the thing that makes us judje that it's
SIMPLE.

> For instance, I understand non-blocking algorithms, and I assert that they
> are complex regardless of how deep of an understanding I have of them

Your affirmation that: "they are complex" is also caused by past
SUBJECTIVE views(you have perhaps found them difficult in the process
of understanding), but the TRUTH is: if you undertstand them
COMPLETLY,
they will finally be SIMPLE and EASY.

And please reread my posts on the proof and also the example
with GRAPH (states+transitions) and you will understand more.

Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.

On Aug 2, 4:03 am, "Chris M. Thomasson" <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
> "Chris M. Thomasson" <n...@spam.invalid> wrote in messagenews:vAbdm.82263$zq1.342@newsfe22.iad...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Amine" <ami...@colba.net> wrote in message
> >news:4945bd6b-7b8c-431a-b8e4-e4bb0471598f@w41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> > On Aug 2, 2:14 am, "Chris M. Thomasson" <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
> >> > "Amine" <ami...@colba.net> wrote in message
>
> >> >news:ece31234-ccb3-4a9d-8f65-6a086b6f64a6@c14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...>
> >> > David Schwartz wrote:
> >> > >> [...]
> >> > >> Spinlocks are phenomenally complex. You have to have a very
> >> > >> deep understanding of the CPU internals to get them right.
>
> >> > > I say that: *NOTHING* is complex or difficult
>
> >> > [...]
>
> >> > Not even the mysteries of the universe? Now, go and learn all the
> >> > answers
> >> > and come back and tell us all about it. Simple.
>
> >> I have gave you the proof and it does WORK my dear Chris M. Thomasson.
>
> >> Now let's take as an example all the process of the universe.
>
> >> Now if you look at the unniverse you will say that this THING
> >> is complex: right ?
>
> > [...]
>
> > Go ahead and learn exactly how the Universe works. Once your done, come
> > back and educate the world's scientists. They will be happy and eager to
> > learn from you.
>
> Even if you completely understand the Universe, well, that simply does not
> mean it's makeup is not complex. It just means that you understand a complex
> process.
>
> For instance, I understand non-blocking algorithms, and I assert that they
> are complex regardless of how deep of an understanding I have of them.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 6 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 2 2009 2:47 am
From: Amine

Hello,

Now follow carefully with me my dear Chris M. Thomasson

There is the Reality:

Reality= Brain(the conscience) + universe outside the brain

And with the Universe ALONE without conscience. you
can NOT make any judjment: like it is Complex or NOT.

Right ?

So, when you finally COMPLETLY understand all
the GRAPH(states + transitions) of this thing
that we call universe, YOU will have the OBJECTIVE
view , and this will make the universe *SIMPLE* for you.

Now imagine that the others still DON'T understand all
the GRAPH(states + transitions) of this thing
that we call universe, they will have a SUBJECTIVE view:
and they will say for example that the universe is COMPLEX.

Tell me now where is the truth ?

And who is right and who is wrong?

It's YOU that is OBJECTIVE and who is right:
this imply that the UNIVERSE is SIMPLE.

Do you finally understand my dear Chris M. Thomasson ?

Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.

On Aug 2, 4:28 am, Amine <ami...@colba.net> wrote:
> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > Even if you completely understand the Universe, well, that simply does not
> > mean it's makeup is not complex. It just means that you understand a complex
> > process.
>
> When you say something like: "this thing is SIMPLE"
>
> You have the presence of two things:
>
> Reality = Brain(with the conscience) + universe outside the brain
>
> Can you tell the THING is SIMPLE or ... without the presence of the
> Conscience ?
>
> The presence of the conscience is a NECESSITY to be able
> to tell that something is SIMPLE
>
> It's the conscience of the thing that makes us judje that it's
> SIMPLE.
>
> > For instance, I understand non-blocking algorithms, and I assert that they
> > are complex regardless of how deep of an understanding I have of them
>
> Your affirmation that: "they are complex" is also caused by past
> SUBJECTIVE views(you have perhaps found them difficult in the process
> of understanding), but the TRUTH is: if you undertstand them
> COMPLETLY,
> they will finally be SIMPLE and EASY.
>
> And please reread my posts on the proof and also the example
> with GRAPH (states+transitions) and you will understand more.
>
> Regards,
> Amine Moulay Ramdane.
>
> On Aug 2, 4:03 am, "Chris M. Thomasson" <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Chris M. Thomasson" <n...@spam.invalid> wrote in messagenews:vAbdm.82263$zq1.342@newsfe22.iad...
>
> > > "Amine" <ami...@colba.net> wrote in message
> > >news:4945bd6b-7b8c-431a-b8e4-e4bb0471598f@w41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Aug 2, 2:14 am, "Chris M. Thomasson" <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
> > >> > "Amine" <ami...@colba.net> wrote in message
>
> > >> >news:ece31234-ccb3-4a9d-8f65-6a086b6f64a6@c14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...>
> > >> > David Schwartz wrote:
> > >> > >> [...]
> > >> > >> Spinlocks are phenomenally complex. You have to have a very
> > >> > >> deep understanding of the CPU internals to get them right.
>
> > >> > > I say that: *NOTHING* is complex or difficult
>
> > >> > [...]
>
> > >> > Not even the mysteries of the universe? Now, go and learn all the
> > >> > answers
> > >> > and come back and tell us all about it. Simple.
>
> > >> I have gave you the proof and it does WORK my dear Chris M. Thomasson.
>
> > >> Now let's take as an example all the process of the universe.
>
> > >> Now if you look at the unniverse you will say that this THING
> > >> is complex: right ?
>
> > > [...]
>
> > > Go ahead and learn exactly how the Universe works. Once your done, come
> > > back and educate the world's scientists. They will be happy and eager to
> > > learn from you.
>
> > Even if you completely understand the Universe, well, that simply does not
> > mean it's makeup is not complex. It just means that you understand a complex
> > process.
>
> > For instance, I understand non-blocking algorithms, and I assert that they
> > are complex regardless of how deep of an understanding I have of them.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 7 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 2 2009 3:28 am
From: Amine

Hello,

I wrote

" Now follow carefully with me my dear Chris M. Thomasson

There is the Reality:

Reality= Brain(the conscience) + universe outside the brain

And with the Universe ALONE without conscience. you
can NOT make any judjment: like it is Complex or NOT.

Right ?

So, when you finally COMPLETLY understand all
the GRAPH(states + transitions) of this thing
that we call universe, YOU will have the OBJECTIVE
view , and this will make the universe *SIMPLE* for you.

Tell me now where is the truth ?

And who is right and who is wrong?

It's YOU that is OBJECTIVE and who is right:
this imply that the UNIVERSE is SIMPLE."

Now if i ask someone a question like this:

"Is the construction of the Azul system - with more than 700 cores -
a complex or a simple thing"

and the answer is.

"The construction of the Azul system is a COMPLEX thing"

Is the answer right or wrong ?

Of course the answer is WRONG.

If you reread my proof and you have understand the example
of the universe that i gave above, you will categoricaly affirm that:

The construction of an Azul system is SIMPLE and EASY.

Now if you repeat this reasonning for ALL the THINGS of
the univers (and the univers) you will finally affim catericaly
that:

"*NOTHING* is complex or difficult"

Hence, my proof is correct.

Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.

== 8 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 2 2009 4:09 am
From: "Chris M. Thomasson"

"Amine" <aminer@colba.net> wrote in message
news:12f7aa88-2c5e-4f2e-86e9-96252ad1b212@r38g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> If you reread my proof and you have understand the example
> of the universe that i gave above, you will categoricaly affirm that:
>
> The construction of an Azul system is SIMPLE and EASY.

Go ahead and tell all the engineers who designed such systems that all of
their very hard work was SIMPLE and EASY. Give me a break man!

[...]

== 9 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 2 2009 4:27 am
From: Amine

On Aug 2, 7:09 am, "Chris M. Thomasson" <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
> "Amine" <ami...@colba.net> wrote in message
>
> news:12f7aa88-2c5e-4f2e-86e9-96252ad1b212@r38g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> [...]
>
> > If you reread my proof and you have understand the example
> > of the universe that i gave above, you will categoricaly affirm that:
>
> > The construction of an Azul system is SIMPLE and EASY.
>
> Go ahead and tell all the engineers who designed such systems that all of
> their very hard work was SIMPLE and EASY. Give me a break man!
>
> [...]

The proof say so

and

The proof is logic and correct

and

It's the law to follow.

Reread my proof and my posts and you will understand what i mean very
well.

Regards,
Amine.

== 10 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 2 2009 4:40 am
From: Amine

I wrote:

"The proof says so

and

The proof is logic and correct

and

It's the law to follow.

reread my proof and my posts

and

you will understand what i mean very well."

I mean if you want really the TRUTH,
you have to follow the law that i have proved.

Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.

== 11 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 2 2009 10:39 am
From: Steve Watt

In article <ece31234-ccb3-4a9d-8f65-6a086b6f64a6@c14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Amine <aminer@colba.net> wrote:
>David Schwartz wrote:
>> [...]
>> Spinlocks are phenomenally complex. You have to have a very
>> deep understanding of the CPU internals to get them right.
>
>
>I say that: *NOTHING* is complex or difficulT
>
>
>My prof:

Presumably you meant "proof".

You have indeed proven something. It probably wasn't what you intended
to prove, however.

I have a deep understanding of operating systems. Modern OSes have
lots of pieces to them. The pieces have non-trivial interactions.
Therefore they are complex, by the definition of the term:
complex:
1. composed of many interconnected parts; compound; composite
2. characterized by a very complicated or involved arrangement
of parts, units, etc.
(etc., from dictionary.reference.com)

So now on to "difficult":
difficult:
1. not easily or readily done; requiring much labor, skill, or
planning to be performed successfully; hard
(etc.)

Therefore, if you have to spend time and effort, and develop
substantial skills, it matches the definition of "difficult".

Would you argue that the Babbage difference engine is not complex?
It's only ~8000 moving parts, and since it's now been built (twice),
clearly it's not a big deal. Was it difficult? In retrospect, with
almost two centuries of technology development between now and when it
was designed (but not built), it's not very difficult, either.

But it only seems simple (the opposite of both complex and difficult,
amusingly) now, after the work has been done.

I will now return to prior state, which is mostly ignoring articles
you've written.
--
Steve Watt KD6GGD PP-ASEL-IA ICBM: 121W 56' 57.5" / 37N 20' 15.3"
Internet: steve @ Watt.COM Whois: SW32-ARIN
Free time? There's no such thing. It just comes in varying prices...

== 12 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 2 2009 10:58 am
From: "Chris M. Thomasson"

"Amine" <aminer@colba.net> wrote in message
news:69b1e1a5-4371-4d34-9a05-67fadd1f52cb@f37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 2, 7:09 am, "Chris M. Thomasson" <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
> > "Amine" <ami...@colba.net> wrote in message
> >
> > news:12f7aa88-2c5e-4f2e-86e9-96252ad1b212@r38g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> > [...]
> >
> > > If you reread my proof and you have understand the example
> > > of the universe that i gave above, you will categoricaly affirm that:
> >
> > > The construction of an Azul system is SIMPLE and EASY.
> >
> > Go ahead and tell all the engineers who designed such systems that all
> > of
> > their very hard work was SIMPLE and EASY. Give me a break man!
> >
> > [...]

> The proof say so

I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

== 13 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 2 2009 1:56 pm
From: Amine

Hello,

Like in RELATIVITY

The judgment that we make on a THING: that it's COMPLEX or NOT
is relative to each intelligence and conscience.

Logic is mathematic

My proof is logic

and

It's a LAW to follow if you want to find the TRUTH.

Now, to help you see more clearer my proof:

Suppose we have understood COMPLETLY the GRAPH(states + transitions)
of the construction of all the UNIVERS , and we want to construct
this
thing, we will finally say that ALL this thing that we call the
UNIVERS is
*SIMPLE* and *EASY* cause we finally UNDERSTOOD COMPLETLY the
process:but perhaps it does take TIME to construct(to move, for
example,
from one point to the other: from one state to the other in the
GRAPH), but
the process wil be still SIMPLE and EASY even if we take more TIME:
we will say for example:

"The process is SIMPLE and EASY but it does take time".

And if we COMPLETLY understood the construction process of the univers

This will make the process SIMPLE and EASY and we will finally
JUDGE and say that the THING that we call UNIVERS is SIMPLE
and EASY: EVEN if it take TIME to construct.

Now we have the Reality:

Reality= Brain(the conscience) + universe outside the brain

And with the Univers ALONE without conscience. you
can NOT make any judgement: like it is COMPLEX or NOT.

Right ?

So, when you finally COMPLETLY understood all
the GRAPH(states + transitions) of this thing
that we call univers, YOU will have the OBJECTIVE
view , and this will make the universe *SIMPLE* for you.

Now imagine that the others still DON'T understand all
the GRAPH(states + transitions) of this thing
that we call univers, they will have a SUBJECTIVE view:
and they will say for example that the univers is COMPLEX.

Tell me now where is the TRUTH ?

And who is right and who is wrong?

It's YOU that is OBJECTIVE and who is RIGH right,
it is you that have the TRUTH, the otherS NO:
this imply that the UNIVERS is SIMPLE."

Now if i ask someone a question like this:

"Is the construction of the Azul system - with more than 700 cores -
a complex or a simple thing?"

and the answer is.

"The construction of the Azul system is a COMPLEX thing"

Is the answer right or wrong ?

Of course the answer is WRONG.

If you reread my proof and you have understood the example
of the univers, that i gave above, you will categoricaly affirm that:

The construction of an Azul system is SIMPLE and EASY.

The same is true for ALL the things inside the univers.

Hence my affirmation:

"NOTHING is complex or diffIcult"

is TRUE

and

My proof is correct.

Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.

== 14 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 2 2009 1:58 pm
From: Amine

Chris M. Thomasson:
> I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one

Hello,

Like in RELATIVITY

The judgment that we make on a THING: that it's COMPLEX or NOT
is relative to each intelligence and conscience.

Logic is mathematic

My proof is logic

and

It's a LAW to follow if you want to find the TRUTH.

Now, to help you see more clearer my proof:

"The process is SIMPLE and EASY but it does take time".

And if we COMPLETLY understood the construction process of the univers

This will make the process SIMPLE and EASY and we will finally
JUDGE and say that the THING that we call UNIVERS is SIMPLE
and EASY: EVEN if it take TIME to construct.

Now we have the Reality:

Reality= Brain(the conscience) + universe outside the brain

And with the Univers ALONE without conscience. you
can NOT make any judgement: like it is COMPLEX or NOT.

Right ?

So, when you finally COMPLETLY understood all
the GRAPH(states + transitions) of this thing
that we call univers, YOU will have the OBJECTIVE
view , and this will make the universe *SIMPLE* for you.

Tell me now where is the TRUTH ?

And who is right and who is wrong?

It's YOU that is OBJECTIVE and who is RIGH right,
it is you that have the TRUTH, the others NO:
this imply that the UNIVERS is SIMPLE."

Now if i ask someone a question like this:

"Is the construction of the Azul system - with more than 700 cores -
a complex or a simple thing?"

and the answer is.

"The construction of the Azul system is a COMPLEX thing"

Is the answer right or wrong ?

Of course the answer is WRONG.

If you reread my proof and you have understood the example
of the univers, that i gave above, you will categoricaly affirm that:

The construction of an Azul system is SIMPLE and EASY.

The same is true for ALL the things inside the univers.

Hence my affirmation:

"NOTHING is complex or diffIcult"

is TRUE

and

My proof is correct.

Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.

== 15 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 2 2009 2:58 pm
From: Amine

I wrote:

"So, when you finally COMPLETLY understood all
the GRAPH(states + transitions) of this thing
that we call univers, YOU will have the OBJECTIVE
view , and this will make the univers *SIMPLE* for you.

[...]"

But to not get 'tired' in the CONSTRUCTION phase,
don't forget to use for example something like: Robots.

Regards,
Amine.

== 16 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 2 2009 5:23 pm
From: Amine

Hello all,

If you have read carefully my proof , you will notice that
it does work correctly if you look at it from an abstract
point of view.

When i have said "nothing is complex or difficult"

i was speaking about ABSTRACT representions of things
inside our conscience.

Now, if you have noticed , as soon as you take into account
the REALITY constraints , the proof will begin to have problems.

As an example: suppose that the THING is a construction process
that make you tired , this means this thing is difficult, so, my
affirmation "nothing is complex or difficult" will become false.

So , as you see, in my reasonning process about such properties
as complex or difficult i have forget to take into account the TWO
things:

the ABSTRACT(like Algorithm etc.) *AND* also the REALITY(like
hardware
etc.).

Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Naz - Computers and Laptops
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.programming.threads/t/7a33be96364c7db7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 2 2009 7:11 am
From: naz mona93

Here are available all details about naz computers and laptops

http://naz-computersandlaptops.blogspot.com/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Spinlocks - trouble with speed - thanks
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.programming.threads/t/9f5e34251ccf45e3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 2 2009 11:04 am
From: "Chris M. Thomasson"

"David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:36cb500f-73d3-4222-97af-17020d910609@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 1, 10:02 am, Thomas Richter <t...@math.tu-berlin.de> wrote:

[...]

> This looks pretty good, but it's a highly-specialized spinlock. It
> will likely outperform more typical spinlocks for the use cases it is
> good for, but will fail horribly if misused. That's fine, so long as
> you're careful not to misuse it.

Agreed.

> Typical spinlocks, for example, spin for only a limited amount of
> time.

I need a quick clarification. Are you referring to adaptive mutexs?

> This spinlock will spin forever. Typical spinlocks have
> safeguards against being used on UP machines. This doesn't. Typical
> spinlocks have safeguards against scenarios where a thread is
> descheduled while holding a spinlock and then other threads waste all
> their timeslices on all CPUs spinning on a spinlock that can't be
> released because the only thread that can release it can't get to the
> CPU because other threads with higher dynamic priorities are spinning
> on it.

> So long as you understand these limitations and use this code only for
> the cases in which it is suitable, it should do quite well. You should
> use it in cases where it is not expected to ever be contested very
> much -- where the lock is needed just on the off chance two threads
> happen to try to do the same thing at the same time. You should not
> use it for cases where more threads than there are CPUs are likely to
> be competing for the same spinlock. You should not use it for locks
> that are held for more than about a thousand instructions. You should
> not use it among threads of different static priorities.

> By not dealing with any of these cases, you can get more performance
> in appropriate cases. However, this is not very user-friendly -- you
> have to know what you're doing to use this, and changing conditions
> can potentially bite you.

FWIW, I just wanted to point out that all of the above also applies to the
two spinlock examples I posted in this thread.

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 2 2009 1:49 pm
From: Francis Moreau

Hello,

On Jul 31, 12:03 am, David Schwartz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
>
> Here's the second biggest: When a CPU does acquire the spinlock after
> spinning on it, it takes the mother of all branch mispredictions,
> likely flushing all pipelines and resulting in a huge performance
> penalty. So, now you have a CPU that's acquired a contested spinlock
> -- it's absolutely vital that it perform at the very optimum to
> preserve performance -- and you've slowed it to a crawl.

Could you develop more on that point because I have no idea what
you mean here ?

for example where does the previous code take all branch
mispredictions ?

Thanks

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 2 2009 5:46 pm
From: Thomas Richter

David Schwartz wrote:
> On Aug 1, 9:30 am, Thomas Richter <t...@math.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
>
>> Are you misreading my posts on purpose? Just to say this again: "My
>> platform does not have mutexes available". Is that clear by now?
>
> You have an SMP x86 platform that has no mutexes?! Seriously?

Seriously. Due to constraints that are beyond me, the final product has
no access to operating system services, and doesn't require them for
other parts of the operation (heavy number crunching, basically).
Specifically, I do not know which operating system it will run on.

> My apologies if I missed where you said that, but that's an extremely
> unusual situation.

> Do you have to support all x86 CPUs or just some subset?

Currently SMP machines with a uniform memory architecture are of
concern. Specifically, I'm looking into dual- and many-core machines
where all cores are on the same chip. NUMA is currently not of any
concern. Basically, this P4 upwards. Hyperthreading may be of some
relevance, but I guess for the given algorithms performance benefits are
not worth it.

Anyhow. The spinlock is only required to protect access to a short code
sequence that maintains a common resource of multiple threads. That is,
the spinlock will never spin for a long time - only for the time the
blocking core runs the given code sequence - and this sequence is pretty
short. Basically, a list of jobs to perform by the threads.
Unfortunately, the structure of this job queue is too complex to allow
lock-free operations at least right now. This is something I need to
look into in the future.

So long,
Thomas

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 2 2009 7:12 pm
From: David Schwartz

On Aug 2, 5:46 pm, Thomas Richter <t...@math.tu-berlin.de> wrote:

> Anyhow. The spinlock is only required to protect access to a short code
> sequence that maintains a common resource of multiple threads. That is,
> the spinlock will never spin for a long time - only for the time the
> blocking core runs the given code sequence - and this sequence is pretty
> short. Basically, a list of jobs to perform by the threads.
> Unfortunately, the structure of this job queue is too complex to allow
> lock-free operations at least right now. This is something I need to
> look into in the future.

Then it sounds like your average case performance of this code should
be perfect. Its worst case performance could be pretty poor, but
you're very unlikely to see that consistently on the same job or the
same machine, so it shouldn't matter.

I would just be careful as the number of threads goes up (if it does).
You don't want every core on the machine spinning on the same spinlock
while the thread that holds the spinlock is unable to run.

I should point out one other issue with this spinlock -- spinning
threads will see their dynamic priority drop. So when they finally do
get the spinlock, they'll be easily pre-empted by other tasks. On some
operating systems, this could result on your application getting
effectively lower priority -- especially if other threads "get in
line" behind the thread that holds the spinlock and similarly see
their priorities drop.

Keep a close eye on how long you hold this spinlock. If it starts to
get over about 1,000 instruction cycles, I would suggest reconsidering
the design. (Unless the code is grab the spinlock, get a job, release
the spinlock, then do a job for many, many thousands of instructions.
Then it shouldn't much matter.)

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 2 2009 7:18 pm
From: David Schwartz

On Aug 2, 1:49 pm, Francis Moreau <francis.m...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Could you develop more on that point because I have no idea what
> you mean here ?

Sure.

> for example where does the previous code take all branch
> mispredictions ?

Here is his lock acquire function:

static inline void FutexObtain(volatile int *fu)
{
while(__sync_fetch_and_add(fu,-1) <= 0) {
Locked_Add(fu,1);
while(*fu <=0) {};
}
}

Now, consider a thread acquiring a contested spinlock. It will spin in
the inner 'while' loop until the other thread releases the spinlock.
At this point, the branch prediction engine will be assuming the
'while' loop will spin again, but it won't. So at the very most
critical instant -- when a thread has just acquired a contested
spinlock -- you will take a horrible branch misprediction.

What's sad about that is that Intel went out of their way to avoid
this problem. For example, see section 2.1 of this paper:
http://cache-www.intel.com/cd/00/00/01/76/17689_w_spinlock.pdf

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 2 2009 7:26 pm
From: David Schwartz

On Aug 2, 11:04 am, "Chris M. Thomasson" <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:

> > Typical spinlocks, for example, spin for only a limited amount of
> > time.

> I need a quick clarification. Are you referring to adaptive mutexs?

Almost. The terms are not used with 100% precision, but normally an
"adaptive mutex" refers to a mutex that spins only if the thread that
holds the lock is known to be running on another core. I was referring
to a spinlock that unconditionally spins (if the lock cannot be
immediately acquires), but spins only for a finite amount of time.
These are sometimes called "spin/sleep" locks.

The problem is that sometimes programmers are simply wrong about what
synchronization type is correct. This may be because they don't
understand synchronization or they don't understand their workload.
But it can also be just because code is used in a way they didn't
expect or on hardware or schedulers that don't act the way they're
used to. Because of this, typical synchronization primitives are
designed to "fail gracefully".

This spinlock will not fail gracefully. So it's important only to use
it for problems for which it is suited. (The obvious example -- it
will fail horribly on UP machines.)

> > By not dealing with any of these cases, you can get more performance
> > in appropriate cases. However, this is not very user-friendly -- you
> > have to know what you're doing to use this, and changing conditions
> > can potentially bite you.

> FWIW, I just wanted to point out that all of the above also applies to the
> two spinlock examples I posted in this thread.

Most platforms, by default, provide very user-friendly mutexes and
spinlocks. They will generally not hurt you too badly if you use a
spinlock where you shouldn't or use a mutex inappropriately. They do
have to sacrifice some best case performance to do this. For example,
a spinlock that can sleep has to check if a thread is sleeping when
the spinlock is released (so it can wake it). This reduces the best
case performance at least a bit.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: About "NOTHING is complex or difficul"
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.programming.threads/t/2ffef796d1b92cde?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 2 2009 5:31 pm
From: Amine

Hello all,

If you have read carefully my proof inside the post
"nothing is complex or difficult", you will notice that
it does work correctly if you look at it from an abstract
point of view.

When i have said "nothing is complex or difficult"

i was speaking about ABSTRACT representions of things
inside our conscience.

Now, if you have noticed , as soon as you take into account
the REALITY 'constraints' , the proof will begin to have problems.

As an example: suppose that the THING is a construction process
that make you tired , this means this thing is difficult, so, my
affirmation "nothing is complex or difficult" will become false.

So , as you see, in my reasonning process about such properties
as complex or difficult i have forgot to take into account the TWO
things:

the ABSTRACT(like Algorithm etc.) *AND* also the REALITY(like
hardware
etc.).

Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 2 2009 8:02 pm
From: Amine

Hello all,

If you have read carefully my proof inside the post
"nothing is complex or difficult", you will notice that
it does work correctly if you look at it from an abstract
point of view.

When i have said "nothing is complex or difficult"

i was speaking about ABSTRACT representions of things
inside our conscience.

Now from an abstract point of view, as soon as you understand
*COMPLETLY* an abstract representation (in the form of conscience),
you will have an OBJECTIVE view of it, and it will become the TRUTH
and as soon as you understand it COMPLETLY it will look SIMPLE
and EASY.

If a person don't undertand an abstract representation of a real
system
and he finally come to the conclusion that it is COMPLEX and DIFFICULT

Is it the TRUTH that it is complex and difficult ?

Of course NO.

Cause this abstract representation of a real system is just
a SUBJECTIVE view.

So it's not the TRUTH..

And the TRUTH lies in the COMPLETE understanding side.

And as soon as you understand the abstract representation completly
it will become SIMPLE and EASY , and this is THE TRUTH.

And the same reasonning is valid for every abstract representation.

Hence, we can finally state that:

EVERY abstract representation is SIMPLE and EASY.

Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.

And this is valid for EVERY abstract representation inside our
conscience.

Hence we can say that

You have said complex ?

Is it just a false impression ?

Or is it the truth ?

Does the complex or difficul really exist ?

Even if we don't comprehend the things

*NOTHING* is complex or difficul.

To say something is complex or difficul is just a FALSE impression

Why ?

If you don't comprehend a thing

and

you have a false impression of it

and

another person has comprehend *COMPLETLY* the same thing

where now the truth lies ?

In the complete understanding side ?

or in the not complete understanding side ?

The truth is:

It is in the understanding side.

And

Since as soon as you COMPREHEND the thing *COMPLETLY*

The thing will become SIMPLE

and this final impression IS the REAL truth.

Hence, *NOTHING* is complex or difficul.

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "comp.programming.threads"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/comp.programming.threads?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to comp.programming.threads+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.programming.threads/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

soft and program

Sunday, August 2, 2009

comp.programming.threads - 25 new messages in 4 topics - digest

No comments:

Blog Archive

About Me