Subj : Re: Challenge: Multithreading & Synchronization
To   : comp.programming.threads
From : Sergei Organov
Date : Thu May 19 2005 09:51 pm

"Uenal Mutlu" <520001085531-0001@t-online.de> writes:
> "Sergei Organov" wrote
[...]
> > I didn't have any objection. What I'm saying is that your own statement
> > cited above:
> >
> > > > > > > But if the data objects are independent of each other then it
> > > > > > > is more efficient to let each have its own mutex.
> >
> > now appears to be plain wrong from your own point of view, right?
> 
> Hmm, sure it does not apply to such extreme examples like your
> 3D-point.

You still fail to unconditionally acknowledge your own mistake... too
bad.

> but for most practical data (esp. containers/arrays) which have to be
> accessed concurrently it does, doesn't it?

Well, if now I have a class Plane3D that is internally defined by 3
3D-points, does your rule apply? Please keep in mind that 3D point is
container/array.

I'm afraid you won't get to anything sensible until you find real
difference between 3D point of my examples and your "most practical
data". And for that to happen, I'm afraid you need to forget almost
everything you "know" about programming and threads and try to start
thinking over with open mind.

Besides, I believe my 3D-point is much more practical data than yours
and its elements are even more practical. Any objection?

> I have to wonder how you come on such an idea to believe that my
> statement would include even such trivial cases like the 3 parts of a
> 3D point, hmm...

Ok, to understand, try to formulate the rules to distinguish between
trivial and non-trivial and keep in mind that I believe that, for
example, in {latitude, longitude, altitude} representation of 3D
position with respect to the Earth each of the elements are rather (not
to say enormously) non-trivial.

-- 
Sergei.

.