• About Lock-free versus Lock-based algorithms..

    From Wisdom91@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jul 16 17:35:02 2020

    Read this:

    About Lock-free versus Lock-based algorithms..

    I am a white arab, and i think i am smart, since i have invented many
    scalable algorithms and there implementations, but today i will say the following:

    I think those Lock-free algorithms are stupid because they are
    too complex and they are so much error prone, other than that
    read my following post to understand more about Lock-free versus Lock:


    So the best way is to use my new powerful invention below of the Holy
    Grail of Locks, so read my following thoughts to understand:

    And I have just read the following IBM Research Report about Locks and convoying:

    The convoy phenomenon


    And i think that it is not so smart, because i am a white arab that is
    smart like a genius , and i have invented a the Holy Grail of Locks that
    is more powerful than the above, it is a scalable Fast Mutex
    that is faster than the scalable MCS Lock, read about it in my
    following thoughts:

    I have invented a scalable algorithm that is a scalable fast Mutex that
    is remarkable and that is the Holy Grail of scalable Locks, it has the following characteristics, read my following thoughts to understand:

    About fair and unfair locking..

    I have just read the following lead engineer at Amazon:

    Highly contended and fair locking in Java


    So as you are noticing that you can use unfair locking that can have
    starvation or fair locking that is slower than unfair locking.

    I think that Microsoft synchronization objects like the Windows critical section uses unfair locking, but they still can have starvation.

    But i think that this not the good way to do, because i am an inventor
    and i have invented a scalable Fast Mutex that is much more powerful ,
    because with my scalable Fast Mutex you are capable to tune the
    "fairness" of the lock, and my Fast Mutex is capable of more than that,
    read about it on my following thoughts:

    More about research and software development..

    I have just looked at the following new video:

    Why is coding so hard...


    I am understanding this video, but i have to explain my work:

    I am not like this techlead in the video above, because i am also an
    "inventor" that has invented many scalable algorithms and there
    implementions, i am also inventing effective abstractions, i give you an example:

    Read the following of the senior research scientist that is called Dave

    Preemption tolerant MCS locks


    As you are noticing he is trying to invent a new lock that is preemption tolerant, but his lock lacks some important characteristics, this is why
    i have just invented a new Fast Mutex that is adaptative and that is
    much much better and i think mine is the "best", and i think you will
    not find it anywhere, my new scalable Fast Mutex has the following characteristics:

    1- Starvation-free
    2- Tunable fairness
    3- It keeps efficiently and very low its cache coherence traffic
    4- Very good fast path performance
    5- And it has a good preemption tolerance.
    6- It is faster than scalable MCS lock
    7- Good at convoy-avoidance.

    And about composability of lock-based systems now:

    Design your systems to be composable. Among the more galling claims of
    the detractors of lock-based systems is the notion that they are somehow uncomposable:

    “Locks and condition variables do not support modular programming,”
    reads one typically brazen claim, “building large programs by gluing
    together smaller programs[:] locks make this impossible.”9 The claim, of course, is incorrect. For evidence one need only point at the
    composition of lock-based systems such as databases and operating
    systems into larger systems that remain entirely unaware of lower-level locking.

    There are two ways to make lock-based systems completely composable, and
    each has its own place. First (and most obviously), one can make locking entirely internal to the subsystem. For example, in concurrent operating systems, control never returns to user level with in-kernel locks held;
    the locks used to implement the system itself are entirely behind the
    system call interface that constitutes the interface to the system. More generally, this model can work whenever a crisp interface exists between software components: as long as control flow is never returned to the
    caller with locks held, the subsystem will remain composable.

    Second (and perhaps counterintuitively), one can achieve concurrency and composability by having no locks whatsoever. In this case, there must be
    no global subsystem state—subsystem state must be captured in
    per-instance state, and it must be up to consumers of the subsystem to
    assure that they do not access their instance in parallel. By leaving
    locking up to the client of the subsystem, the subsystem itself can be
    used concurrently by different subsystems and in different contexts. A
    concrete example of this is the AVL tree implementation used extensively
    in the Solaris kernel. As with any balanced binary tree, the
    implementation is sufficiently complex to merit componentization, but by
    not having any global state, the implementation may be used concurrently
    by disjoint subsystems—the only constraint is that manipulation of a
    single AVL tree instance must be serialized.

    Read more here:


    And you have to look here at our DelphiConcurrent and FreepascalConcurrent:


    Thank you,
    Amine Moulay Ramdane.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)