On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 09:55:22AM +0200, Dominik Dingel wrote: > From: Dominik Dingel <dingel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Hi all, > > here is a somehow naive implementation of a reader/writer lock based approch > for the parallel deq problem. > > The next step would be to use it as an introduction example in the text, as due > its way of implementation (taking always a read lock, working always with an > atomic counter) it is a less efficient way of doing things, compared with the > tandem approch. Then the benefits of partitioning might be even more obvious. > > Thanks > Dominik Queued, thank you, Dominik! A quick unscientific run leads me to believe that this is slightly faster than the hashed implementation (not bad!), but about twice as slow as the tandem version. Of course, considerable variation is to be expected based on workload. Thanx, Paul > Dominik Dingel (2): > CodeSamples: Fix compiler warnings > CodeSamples: add read/write solution to the deq example > > CodeSamples/SMPdesign/Makefile | 5 +- > CodeSamples/SMPdesign/deqtorture.h | 2 +- > CodeSamples/SMPdesign/lockrwdeq.c | 154 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > CodeSamples/SMPdesign/locktdeq.c | 4 - > CodeSamples/SMPdesign/matmul.c | 3 +- > CodeSamples/SMPdesign/matmul_block.c | 3 +- > CodeSamples/SMPdesign/smpalloc.c | 1 - > 7 files changed, 163 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 CodeSamples/SMPdesign/lockrwdeq.c > > -- > 1.9.1 > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe perfbook" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe perfbook" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
