multi-core software

[Arved Sandstrom]

Jon Harrop wrote:
> Roedy Green wrote:
>> On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 18:15:00 +0000 (UTC), Kaz Kylheku
>> <kkylheku at gmail.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
>> said :
>>> Even for problems where it appears trivial, there can be hidden
>>> issues, like false cache coherency communication where no actual
>>> sharing is taking place. Or locks that appear to have low contention and
>>> negligible performance impact on ``only'' 8 processors suddenly turn into
>>> bottlenecks. Then there is NUMA. A given address in memory may be
>>> RAM attached to the processor accessing it, or to another processor,
>>> with very different access costs.
>> Could what you are saying be summed up by saying, "The more threads
>> you have the more important it is to keep your threads independent,
>> sharing as little data as possible."
> 
> I see no problem with mutable shared state.
> 
In which case, Jon, you're in a small minority.

AHS