RE: [Gomp-discuss] Decision about semaphores ..

[Scott Robert Ladd]

Perhaps you misunderstood me... all parallel programs have fork/joins, and
of course we need to implement them. I was just saying that a well-written
parallel program *minimizes* the number of fork/joins.

..Scott

> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden
> [mailto:address@hidden Behalf
> Of Lars Segerlund
> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 09:19
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [Gomp-discuss] Decision about semaphores ..
>
>
>
>   It's not an option if we want to have fork/join's or not, they are
> explicitly specified in openMP. A semaphore is as good a join as youre
> going to get, ( compared to multiple waits ).
>
>   But Ok, I get it POSIX.
>
>   / Seger.
>
> Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
> > 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 mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://mail.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gomp-discuss
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gomp-discuss mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gomp-discuss
>