This repository was archived by the owner on Mar 21, 2024. It is now read-only.
Barrier parity waiting and algorithm tweaks#69
Closed
ogiroux wants to merge 5 commits into
Closed
Conversation
Contributor
Author
|
I amended the description above after reducing the ABI exposure. |
Collaborator
|
Closing in favor of #111 |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Adds the ability to wait on a barrier when having only retained phase parity information (from domain knowledge, it isn't recoverable from the barrier object or its tokens), like so:
Also changed the algorithm so that some
b.arrive();can be equivalent to just afetch_addon its constituent atomic. These are available with the__expect_extra_arriveand__extra_arrivemembers.The parity waiting part isn't ABI breaking, but the algorithm tweak is ABI breaking because it halves the value of
::max(), to half of int max (which is somewhat theoretical an issue given how large this number is). I didn't add ABI handling code.