Re: Squid-smp : Please discuss

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 1:38 AM, Adrian Chadd <adrian_at_squid-cache.org> wrote:
> 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
>

And current generation libraries are also far better than older, like
OpenMP, creating threads and handling synchronization issues in OpenMP
is very easy...

Automatic locks are provided, u need not to design your own locking
mechanisms........ Just a statement and u can lock the shared
variable...
Then the major work remains is to identify the shared access.....

I WANT TO USE OPENMP library.............

ANY suggestions.....
Received on Tue Sep 15 2009 - 05:51:44 MDT