hlovatt wrote: > This is a very interesting discussion and reveals a lot about the > difficulties of programming for multiple cores. > > I was trying to understand what was going on and was 'messing about' > with the code and I noticed that almost any change I made slowed the > code down considerably - more than the 1 or 2 thread options in Java 6 > does. Therefore I am not sure how realistic the code is. If the code > did more than simply increment a variable or two than the problem > might go away (because contention would be less and because the > uncontested operations would be a bigger percentage). > > Going back to the original code. If it is OK to miss a few increments > (hence non-volitile statics) then the following should be OK:
Yeah, clever, and basically the same as the eventual fix I had for JRuby since it gives each thread its own counter. I think the primary rule here is that don't expect any sort of unsynchronized, uncontrolled updates to the same shared resource to either behave the way you want or perform the way you want. - Charlie --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JVM Languages" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jvm-languages?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
