http://groups.google.com/group/comp.programming.threads?hl=en
comp.programming.threads@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* a lock-based proxy collector? - 3 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.programming.threads/t/3b70d0ead8e62e15?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: a lock-based proxy collector?
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.programming.threads/t/3b70d0ead8e62e15?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 24 2009 9:20 pm
From: "Chris M. Thomasson"
"Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:URUYm.2918$8e4.2821@newsfe03.iad...
> "Dmitriy Vyukov" <dvyukov@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c085d068-f533-4ab7-9c1c-4d8fc3aec9eb@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> The key elements are objects are deferred in FIFO order. After two
> mutations
> occur, one can pop a node off the FIFO and destroy it because it's
> quiescent. I believe there are many improvements I can make to this
> lock-based collector as well as non-blocking collectors based on the same
> basic logic. I will do further testing with Relacy...
Test passes 50,000,000 iterations. I cannot seem to find any problems right
now.
> What do you think about this Dmitriy?
> BTW, Merry Christmas Everybody!
>
> :^D
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 20 2009 6:30 am
From: "Chris M. Thomasson"
"Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:vYpXm.703$8e4.638@newsfe03.iad...
> "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:BNpXm.702$8e4.485@newsfe03.iad...
> [...]
>>> Humm, well it seems like a "possible" scheme might be to let the readers
>>> simply load a reference to current collector just like in my first
>>> example pseudo-code. The mutator collects nodes and only frees them when
>>> a threshold is encountered. The mutator could do this by simply
>>> collecting from the _current_ collector instead of the previous one .
>>> Okay, check this scheme out:
>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> [...]
>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>> Need to think if this can possibly work or not... I will probably model
>>> this in Relacy.
>>
>> I don't think this will work. Need to think some more...
>
> Well, so far Relacy disagrees with me because the following test I modeled
> of the algorithm is churning right along as I type:
>
>
> http://relacy.pastebin.com/f5292fbf4
>
I posted the wrong version damn it! Here is the corrected link:
http://relacy.pastebin.com/f53e494e6
Sorry about that! I am running the test with `RL_FORCE_SEQ_CST' defined in
order to see if the algorithm will work at all.
I don't know about this. I have my doubts on the algorithm.
Oh well.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 20 2009 6:30 am
From: "Chris M. Thomasson"
"Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:vYpXm.703$8e4.638@newsfe03.iad...
> "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:BNpXm.702$8e4.485@newsfe03.iad...
> [...]
>>> Humm, well it seems like a "possible" scheme might be to let the readers
>>> simply load a reference to current collector just like in my first
>>> example pseudo-code. The mutator collects nodes and only frees them when
>>> a threshold is encountered. The mutator could do this by simply
>>> collecting from the _current_ collector instead of the previous one .
>>> Okay, check this scheme out:
>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> [...]
>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>> Need to think if this can possibly work or not... I will probably model
>>> this in Relacy.
>>
>> I don't think this will work. Need to think some more...
>
> Well, so far Relacy disagrees with me because the following test I modeled
> of the algorithm is churning right along as I type:
>
>
> http://relacy.pastebin.com/f5292fbf4
>
I posted the wrong version damn it! Here is the corrected link:
http://relacy.pastebin.com/f53e494e6
Sorry about that! I am running the test with `RL_FORCE_SEQ_CST' defined in
order to see if the algorithm will work at all.
I don't know about this. I have my doubts on the algorithm.
Oh well.
==============================================================================
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