Hello,

More philosophy about my IQ and my personality..

I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have also
invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms..

You have to know me more, i have passed two certified IQ tests and they
are standardized IQ tests, and i have scored in both of them well above
115 IQ, so this means that i am highly smart, but i think that those standardized IQ tests are not testing well my smartness, since my brain's thinking is "strategic" thinking and it is genetical in me, i mean that my way of "naturally" thinking is strategic thinking, so as you will also notice that my inventions below are strategic thinking, i will give you an example about strategic thinking so that you understand:

So i am noticing the "complexity" of learning and understanding, but since i am strategic thinking and it is genetical in me, i am strategically making the learning and understanding efficiently much less complex so that i learn quickly and i understand quickly, it is by logical analogy like when you do a fight with a much stronger person than you, so you can do the fight stupidly by the brute force way,
or you can search for the "weaknesses" of this much stronger person
than you and find it or them and take advantage of it and win the fight against him, that's also being strategic.

More about the energy efficiency of Transactional memory and more..

We have to take into account in software engineering the Energy-delay product (EDP), where energy the total energy consumption of cores and delay is the amount of time for executing applications, but i invite you
to read the following paper about energy efficiency of Transactional memory and notice that the TCC-based HTM only reaches on an average 19% reduction in energy consumption and notice that for the DVFS strategy it only reaches a reduction of approximately 59% in EDP, so that's not good, read here in the following paper so that to notice it:

https://computersystemslaboratory.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/baldassin2012sbac.pdf

Also I have just read the following PhD paper from arabs PhD reseachers, it is also about energy efficiency of Transactional memory, here it is:

Techniques for Enhancing the Efficiency of Transactional Memory Systems

http://kth.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1258335/FULLTEXT02.pdf

And i think it is the best known energy efficient algorithm for
Transactional memory, but i think it is not good, since
look at how for 64 cores the Beta parameter can be 16 cores,
so i think i am smart and i have just invented a much more energy efficient algorithm that solves the problem once and for all.

Here is my just new invention of a scalable algorithm and my other new inventions..

I have just read the following PhD paper about the invention that we call counting networks and they are better than Software combining trees:

Counting Networks

http://people.csail.mit.edu/shanir/publications/AHS.pdf

And i have read the following PhD paper:

http://people.csail.mit.edu/shanir/publications/HLS.pdf

So as you are noticing they are saying in the conclusion that:

"Software combining trees and counting networks which are the only techniques we observed to be truly scalable"

But i just found that this counting networks algorithm is not generally scalable, and i have the logical proof here, this is why i have just come with a new invention that enhance the counting networks algorithm to be generally scalable. So you have to be careful with the actual counting networks algorithm that is not generally scalable.

More philosophy about my kind of works..

I just written the following:

--

More philosophy about my way of doing..

You have to know me more, since i have just posted about Computer Science vs Software Engineering, but i am not like
Computer Science or Software Engineering, because i am an inventor
of many software scalable algorithms and algorithms, and i have invented some powerful software tools, so my way of doing is being innovative and creative and inventive, so i am like a PhD researcher, and i am writing some books about my inventions and about my powerful tools etc.

--

I will give an example of how i am an inventive and creative, i have just read the following book (and of other books like it) of a PhD researcher about operational research and capacity planning, here they are:

Performance by Design: Computer Capacity Planning by Example

https://www.amazon.ca/Performance-Design-Computer-Capacity-Planning/dp/0130906735

So i have just found that there methodologies of those PhD researchers for the E-Business service don't work, because they are doing calculations for a given arrival rate that is statistically and empirically measured from the behavior of customers, but i think that it is not correct, so i am being inventive and i have come with my new methodology that fixes the arrival rate from the data by using an hyperexponential service distribution(and it is mathematical) since it is also good for Denial-of-Service (DoS) attacks and i will write a powerful book about it that will teach my new methodology and i will also explain the mathematics behind it and i will sell it, and my new methodology will work for cloud computing and for computer servers.

More about my inventions of scalable algorithms..

More precision about my new inventions of scalable algorithms..

And look at my below powerful inventions of LW_Fast_RWLockX and Fast_RWLockX that are two powerful scalable RWLocks that are FIFO fair
and Starvation-free and costless on the reader side
(that means with no atomics and with no fences on the reader side), they use sys_membarrier expedited on Linux and FlushProcessWriteBuffers() on windows, and if you look at the source code of my LW_Fast_RWLockX.pas
and Fast_RWLockX.pas inside the zip file, you will notice that in Linux they call two functions that are membarrier1() and membarrier2(), the membarrier1() registers the process's intent to use MEMBARRIER_CMD_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED and membarrier2() executes a memory barrier on each running thread belonging to the same process as the calling thread.

Read more here to understand:

https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/membarrier.2.html

Here is my new powerful inventions of scalable algorithms..

I have just updated my powerful inventions of LW_Fast_RWLockX and Fast_RWLockX that are two powerful scalable RWLocks that are FIFO fair
and Starvation-free and costless on the reader side (that means with no atomics and with no fences on the reader side), they use sys_membarrier expedited on Linux and FlushProcessWriteBuffers() on windows, and now they work with both Linux and Windows, and i think my inventions are really smart, since read the following PhD researcher,
he says the following:

"Until today, there is no known efficient reader-writer lock with starvation-freedom guarantees;"

Read more here:

http://concurrencyfreaks.blogspot.com/2019/04/onefile-and-tail-latency.html

So as you have just noticed he says the following:

"Until today, there is no known efficient reader-writer lock with starvation-freedom guarantees;"

So i think that my above powerful inventions of scalable reader-writer locks are efficient and FIFO fair and Starvation-free.

LW_Fast_RWLockX that is a lightweight scalable Reader-Writer Mutex that uses a technic that looks like Seqlock without looping on the reader side like Seqlock, and this has permitted the reader side to be costless, it is fair and it is of course Starvation-free and it does spin-wait, and also Fast_RWLockX a lightweight scalable Reader-Writer Mutex that uses a technic that looks like Seqlock without looping on the reader side like Seqlock, and this has permitted the reader side to be costless, it is fair and it is of course Starvation-free and it does not spin-wait, but waits on my SemaMonitor, so it is energy efficient.

You can read about them and download them from my website here:

https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/scalable-rwlock

About the Linux sys_membarrier() expedited and the windows FlushProcessWriteBuffers()..

I have just read the following webpage:

https://lwn.net/Articles/636878/

And it is interesting and it says:

---

Results in liburcu:

Operations in 10s, 6 readers, 2 writers:

memory barriers in reader: 1701557485 reads, 3129842 writes
signal-based scheme: 9825306874 reads, 5386 writes
sys_membarrier expedited: 6637539697 reads, 852129 writes
sys_membarrier non-expedited: 7992076602 reads, 220 writes

---

Look at how "sys_membarrier expedited" is powerful.

Cache-coherency protocols do not use IPIs, and as a user-space level developer you do not care about IPIs at all. One is most interested in the cost of cache-coherency itself. However, Win32 API provides a function that issues IPIs to all processors (in the affinity mask of the current process) FlushProcessWriteBuffers(). You can use it to investigate the cost of IPIs.

When i do simple synthetic test on a dual core machine I've obtained following numbers.

420 cycles is the minimum cost of the FlushProcessWriteBuffers() function on issuing core.

1600 cycles is mean cost of the FlushProcessWriteBuffers() function on issuing core.

1300 cycles is mean cost of the FlushProcessWriteBuffers() function on remote core.

Note that, as far as I understand, the function issues IPI to remote core, then remote core acks it with another IPI, issuing core waits for ack IPI and then returns.

And the IPIs have indirect cost of flushing the processor pipeline.