[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Gomp-discuss] Decision about semaphores ..
From: |
Scott Robert Ladd |
Subject: |
RE: [Gomp-discuss] Decision about semaphores .. |
Date: |
Wed, 19 Feb 2003 09:13:54 -0500 |
Biagio Lucini wrote:
> My vote is for posix, for the reason you explain.
>
> In a well-structured parallel program there must be as few as possible
> fork/join. In an hyperideal case, you should just fork close to the
> beginning and join right before the end. So I'm not concerned about this
> overhead: part of it is down to the programer, the rest should be
> negligible anyway.
I agree with Biago. A parallel program that contains too many fork/joins is
unlikely to perform effectively. In this case, I think portability (posix)
is most important.
..Scott
- [Gomp-discuss] Decision about semaphores .., Lars Segerlund, 2003/02/19
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Decision about semaphores .., Steven Bosscher, 2003/02/19
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Decision about semaphores .., Pop Sébastian, 2003/02/19
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Decision about semaphores .., Lars Segerlund, 2003/02/19
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Decision about semaphores .., Steven Bosscher, 2003/02/19
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Decision about semaphores .., Lars Segerlund, 2003/02/19
- RE: [Gomp-discuss] Decision about semaphores .., Scott Robert Ladd, 2003/02/19
- RE: [Gomp-discuss] Decision about semaphores .., Steven Bosscher, 2003/02/19
Re: [Gomp-discuss] Decision about semaphores .., Biagio Lucini, 2003/02/19
- RE: [Gomp-discuss] Decision about semaphores ..,
Scott Robert Ladd <=
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Decision about semaphores .., Lars Segerlund, 2003/02/19
- RE: [Gomp-discuss] Decision about semaphores .., Scott Robert Ladd, 2003/02/19
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Decision about semaphores .., Lars Segerlund, 2003/02/19
- RE: [Gomp-discuss] Decision about semaphores .., Scott Robert Ladd, 2003/02/19
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Decision about semaphores .., Lars Segerlund, 2003/02/19