On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 17:53, Dan Sugalski wrote;
Given that it's not a SMP, massively out of order NUMA system with
delayed writes... no. 'Fraid not.
Sorry to be pedantic, but I always thought that the NU in NUMA implied
a contradiction of the S in SMP!
NUMA MP or SMP, what does it mean to
At 10:01 AM +1300 1/5/04, Sam Vilain wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 17:53, Dan Sugalski wrote;
Given that it's not a SMP, massively out of order NUMA system with
delayed writes... no. 'Fraid not.
Sorry to be pedantic, but I always thought that the NU in NUMA implied
a contradiction of the S in
First, I'm not paying much attention. Maybe next week. However, as
messages that Eudora tags with multiple chiles tend to get my
attention, be aware that the following are non-negotiable:
1) We are relying on OS services for all threading constructs
We are not going to count on 'atomic'
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2) The only thread constructs we are going to count on are:
*) Abstract, non-recursive, simple locks
*) Rendezvous points (Things threads go to sleep on until another
thread pings the condition)
*) Semaphores (in the I do a V and P operation,
At 1:11 AM +0100 1/4/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2) The only thread constructs we are going to count on are:
*) Abstract, non-recursive, simple locks
*) Rendezvous points (Things threads go to sleep on until another
thread pings the condition)
*)
At 11:42 PM + 1/3/04, Nigel Sandever wrote:
03/01/04 23:20:17, Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Dan getting cranky snipped]
And that was that! Sorry I spoke.
I'm not trying to shut anyone down. What I wanted to do was stop
folks diving down too low a level. Yes, we could roll our own
DS == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS (This is one of those cases where I'd really prefer for force
DS everyone doing thread work to have to work on 8 processor Alpha
DS boxes (your choice of OS, I don't care), one of the most vicious
DS threading enviroments ever devised, but
At 11:49 PM -0500 1/3/04, Uri Guttman wrote:
DS == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS (This is one of those cases where I'd really prefer for force
DS everyone doing thread work to have to work on 8 processor Alpha
DS boxes (your choice of OS, I don't care), one of the most vicious
DS == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS At 11:49 PM -0500 1/3/04, Uri Guttman wrote:
DS == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS (This is one of those cases where I'd really prefer for force
DS everyone doing thread work to have to work on 8 processor Alpha
DS boxes
