Re: thread memory size
- From: Jan Helgesen <spam@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:35:46 +0200
David Schwartz wrote:
On Oct 9, 12:11 am, Jan Helgesen <s...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The benefit is simple -- you don't have to share memory. And that is
the *only* benefit to prohibiting the use of other synchronization
mechanisms.
Exactly :)
So why are you asking about threads which do have to share memory?
Sorry but that's not the paragraph i intended to comment on. I forgot to
remove the latter part of that paragraph
Let me re-comment it again:
-------
That is a *cost* that only makes sense to pay if there's some
corresponding *benefit*.
Exactly :) and that is the one benefit I am talking about. It allows
massive parallelisation of code, which is an enormous benefit. That
benefit can be utilised when computers move to more and more cores per
processors, instead of the old game that was about more and more
kilo/mega/giga hertz.
---------
But as I said we are off track in this discussion, please see my other
post to you, which should help us focus the discussion on the real
matter again.
regards
Jan
.
- References:
- thread memory size
- From: Jan Helgesen
- Re: thread memory size
- From: Rainer Weikusat
- Re: thread memory size
- From: Jan Helgesen
- Re: thread memory size
- From: David Schwartz
- Re: thread memory size
- From: Jan Helgesen
- Re: thread memory size
- From: David Schwartz
- Re: thread memory size
- From: Jan Helgesen
- Re: thread memory size
- From: Rainer Weikusat
- Re: thread memory size
- From: Jan Helgesen
- Re: thread memory size
- From: David Schwartz
- Re: thread memory size
- From: Jan Helgesen
- Re: thread memory size
- From: David Schwartz
- thread memory size
- Prev by Date: Re: thread memory size
- Next by Date: Re: thread memory size
- Previous by thread: Re: thread memory size
- Next by thread: Problem with pppd GPRS connection
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|