Anonymous user
Talk:Checkpoint synchronization: Difference between revisions
→Ruby code does wrong task?: new section
No edit summary |
(→Ruby code does wrong task?: new section) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 6:
: The principle is that there is a checkpoint group (which a thread may ask to join and leave) and on synchronization, nobody completes the checkpoint synch operation until all members of the group complete it. It's use might be if you've got a bunch of threads doing some kind of physical simulation, with a checkpoint barrier at the end of each simulation time step. –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 13:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Is 'checkpoint synchronization' the best name for this task? On wikipedia, there's
== Ruby code does wrong task? ==
I added a Ruby example. Like the Perl code, the Ruby code uses blocking IO on sockets to synchronize the workers. I am not sure if my Ruby code does the correct task. When the workers finish a mechanism, they do not immediately start to build the next mechanism. Instead, all workers wait until the main thread orders the next mechanism. While they wait, the main thread can add or remove workers. Thus, workers can only join or leave the workshop ''between mechanisms'', while all workers are idle. --[[User:Kernigh|Kernigh]] 06:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
| |||