http://groups.google.com/group/comp.programming.threads?hl=en
comp.programming.threads@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* NOTHING is complex or difficul... - 5 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.programming.threads/t/8f4050fcf0ebf6ae?hl=en
* weird thread behavior on itanium/hp-ux with pthread - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.programming.threads/t/b2b5d744b99b760c?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: NOTHING is complex or difficul...
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.programming.threads/t/8f4050fcf0ebf6ae?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 1 2009 6:36 pm
From: David Schwartz
On Aug 1, 5:54 pm, Amine <ami...@colba.net> wrote:
Are you mentally defective in some way? Seriously.
> Cause the final information: the thing has become
> SIMPLE and NOT difficult
Right, and that such a thing is required is what it means to call
something "difficult".
> is OBJECTIVE
>
> and
>
> It's the TRUTH.
>
> That's all.
Right, and that's what it means to say something is "difficult".
When I say "X is difficult", what I mean is that just such a process
is required in order to understand it. Whatever you realize at the
end, the fact that you had to travel the path to get to the end proves
that it was in fact difficult because that is what the word
"difficult" means.
DS
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 1 2009 6:51 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?
Reread my post.
Discution stoped.
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 1 2009 11:14 pm
From: "Chris M. Thomasson"
"Amine" <aminer@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.
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 1 2009 11:39 pm
From: Amine
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 ?
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 the 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 REAL TRUTH.
And the proof - that a 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 5 ==
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.
Read more:
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.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: weird thread behavior on itanium/hp-ux with pthread
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.programming.threads/t/b2b5d744b99b760c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 1 2009 11:55 pm
From: Jeremy
On Aug 1, 4:32 am, David Schwartz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
> On Jul 28, 6:07 pm, Jeremy <fc2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > however, using tusc, we observed that thread 0 did go to sleep first,
> > and 'something else' did happen afterwards, but thread 0 did not wake
> > up until it timed out.
>
> You are misreading the output of tusc. It is not telling that thread 0
> did go to sleep first. It is telling you that thread 0 *decided* to go
> to sleep first. It may have actually gone to sleep significantly
> later. Since "something_happened" occurs outside of the mutex, it is
> impossible to tell from the tusc output whether thread 0 actually did
> go to sleep before or after something happened. However, the next
> mutex acquisition in the other thread cannot occur until thread 0 goes
> to sleep, because going to sleep and releasing the mutex is atomic.
>
> DS
since we have time stamps of each sys calls, including when thread 0
woke up and when something_happened (which is really a poll call), we
deduced using thread 0 timeout value that it went to sleep earlier
than when poll was initiated.
furthermore, if something_happened earlier, thread 0 shall never go to
sleep.
to be more clear, I rectified the pseudo code as below:
thread 0----------------
loop
process_sockets_with_events();
mutex.lock();
if ( !signaled) {
sleeping = true;
while (sleeping)
condition.timedwait(1);
} else {
sleeping = false;
signaled = false;
}
mutex.unlock
thread 1 -----------------------
loop
waitfor_events_poll();
if (event_happened) {
mark_sockets_with_events();
mutex.lock();
if (sleeping) {
sleeping = false;
condition.signal();
}
signaled = true;
mutex.unlock();
}
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 1 2009 11:55 pm
From: Jeremy
On Aug 1, 4:32 am, David Schwartz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
> On Jul 28, 6:07 pm, Jeremy <fc2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > however, using tusc, we observed that thread 0 did go to sleep first,
> > and 'something else' did happen afterwards, but thread 0 did not wake
> > up until it timed out.
>
> You are misreading the output of tusc. It is not telling that thread 0
> did go to sleep first. It is telling you that thread 0 *decided* to go
> to sleep first. It may have actually gone to sleep significantly
> later. Since "something_happened" occurs outside of the mutex, it is
> impossible to tell from the tusc output whether thread 0 actually did
> go to sleep before or after something happened. However, the next
> mutex acquisition in the other thread cannot occur until thread 0 goes
> to sleep, because going to sleep and releasing the mutex is atomic.
>
> DS
since we have time stamps of each sys calls, including when thread 0
woke up and when something_happened (which is really a poll call), we
deduced using thread 0 timeout value that it went to sleep earlier
than when poll was initiated.
furthermore, if something_happened earlier, thread 0 shall never go to
sleep.
to be more clear, I rectified the pseudo code as below:
thread 0----------------
loop
process_sockets_with_events();
mutex.lock();
if ( !signaled) {
sleeping = true;
while (sleeping)
condition.timedwait(1);
} else {
sleeping = false;
signaled = false;
}
mutex.unlock
thread 1 -----------------------
loop
waitfor_events_poll();
if (event_happened) {
mark_sockets_with_events();
mutex.lock();
if (sleeping) {
sleeping = false;
condition.signal();
}
signaled = true;
mutex.unlock();
}
==============================================================================
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
No comments:
Post a Comment