2009/9/15 Sachin Malave <sachinmalave_at_gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 1:18 AM, Adrian Chadd <adrian_at_squid-cache.org> wrote:
>> Guys,
>>
>> Please look at what other multi-CPU network applications do, how they
>> work and don't work well, before continuing this kind of discussion.
>>
>> Everything that has been discussed has already been done to death
>> elsewhere. Please don't re-invent the wheel, badly.
> Yes synchronization is always expensive . So we must target only those
> areas where shared data is updated infrequently. Also if we are making
> thread then the amount of work done must be more as compared to
> overheads required in thread creation, synchronization & scheduling.
Current generation CPUs are a lot, lot better at the thread-style sync
primitives than older CPUs.
There's other things to think about, such as lockless queues,
transactional memory hackery, atomic instructions in general, etc,
etc, which depend entirely upon the type of hardware being targetted.
> If we try to provide locks to existing data structures then
> synchronization factor will definitely affect to our design.
> Redesigning of such structures and there behavior is time consuming
> and may change whole design of the Squid.
Adrian
Received on Tue Sep 15 2009 - 06:01:32 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Sep 15 2009 - 12:00:04 MDT