On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 14:09, Dmitry Karpeev <karpeev at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> I wouldn't consider that stackoverflow post to be authoritative, but there >> is a large body of literature on lock-free synchronization. >> > > Could you point me to some of it? > These are not bad places to start https://www.google.com/search?q=lock-free http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=lock-free > >> Unless there is resource contention, spinning is always the lowest >> latency choice. All multi-threaded cores have some sort of pause >> instruction because it's necessary to make that design useful. For this >> purpose, we should just spin. >> >> Note that with sequential consistency, >> > > What do you mean by "sequential consistency"? If we did serialize the > threads before waking them up? > Sequential consistency has to do with the memory model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequential_consistency -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20111129/57eefcbe/attachment.html>
