On 05/04/2011 10:20 AM, Eric Melski wrote:
On 05/04/2011 09:47 AM, David Boyce wrote:
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Per Jessen<[email protected]> wrote:
yeah, SYNCSH_SERIALIZE is equal to what I do today using this construct:
(flock -s 200; some-command $^ $@) 200>/var/lock/some-lockfile
It satisfies the single-thread requirement, but in massively parallel
runs, several of these often end up waiting for each other.
Could you rephrase this? I can't see a meaningful distinction between
"waiting for each other" and "submit one at a time". Either way
they're serialized, no?
They are serialized either way, but the processes could be consuming
other resources (memory, disk, database connections, etc). In the
"submit one at a time" model, you avoid tying up those resources needlessly.
Oops, should have had my coffee before responding. :) I see now the
synchronization occurs outside the invocation of the process, so the
process won't be able to acquire any other resources, because it won't
actually have started.
I suppose if you're looking at a really, really massively parallel
system you might have concerns with swamping the process table with
effectively idle processes though.
br,
Eric Melski
Architect
Electric Cloud, Inc.
http://blog.melski.net/
_______________________________________________
Help-make mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-make
