realbasic-nug
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Dealing with multi-processor or multi-core

To: "REALbasic NUG" <realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com>
Subject: Re: Dealing with multi-processor or multi-core
From: "Peter K. Stys" <pkstys at gmail dot com>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 14:02:56 -0600
Authentication-results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of realbasic-nug-bounces at lists dot realsoftware dot com designates 66.116.103.65 as permitted sender) smtp dot mail=realbasic-nug-bounces at lists dot realsoftware dot com
Delivered-to: listarchive at realsoftware dot com
Delivered-to: realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com
References: <77124270805301112ja025ec1i5295f790cf52d33b at mail dot gmail dot com> <BAY107-DAV13E1BCBA0B8DD7A3965E3D93BE0 at phx dot gbl>
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Daniel Stenning <d0stenning at msn dot com> 
wrote:

> What might help is some facility in the RB language to support  "shared
> memory".  This requires semaphores etc but is faster when we need to share
> big amounts of data amongst several processes ( or helper apps ).  Passing
> huge chunks of data via IPC is slow.



I'd second this: if multiple cores/threads/processes are needed, it's
usually because you need to operate on a large amount of data in parallel.
 Sending it via IPC or Notification may take as long as crunching it by a
single thread, defeating the multicore exercise.

-- 
---------------------------------------------
Peter K. Stys, MD
Dept. of Clinical Neurosciences
Hotchkiss Brain Institute
University of Calgary
tel (403) 210-8646
---------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>

Search the archives:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>