ItsDrike/itsdrike.com
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/ItsDrike/itsdrike.com.git synced 2024-11-13 23:37:16 +00:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Fix formatting

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
ItsDrike 2021-11-17 18:59:03 +01:00
parent de560ef99b
commit 1dc1488c44
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG key ID: FB8CA11A2CF3A843
1 changed files with 22 additions and 22 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

44
content/posts/concurrency-and-parallelism.md
View file

@ -93,12 +93,12 @@ In the example here, we can see that python keeps a reference count for the empt
threads could attempt to increase the reference count at once, this is a problem because what would actually happen threads could attempt to increase the reference count at once, this is a problem because what would actually happen
would go something like this: would go something like this:
> Thread 1: Read the current amount of references from memory (for example 5) > Thread 1: Read the current amount of references from memory (for example 5) <br>
> Thread 2: Read the current amount of references from memory (same as above - 5) > Thread 2: Read the current amount of references from memory (same as above - 5) <br>
> Thread 1: Increase this amount by 1 (we're now at 6) > Thread 1: Increase this amount by 1 (we're now at 6) <br>
> Thread 2: Increase this amount by 1 (we're also at 6 in the 2nd thread) > Thread 2: Increase this amount by 1 (we're also at 6 in the 2nd thread) <br>
> Thread 1: Store the increased amount back to memory (we store this increased amount of 6 back to memory) > Thread 1: Store the increased amount back to memory (we store this increased amount of 6 back to memory) <br>
> Thread 2: Store the increased amount back to memory (we store the increased amount of 6 to memory?) > Thread 2: Store the increased amount back to memory (we store the increased amount of 6 to memory?) <br>
[Treat sections of 2 lines as things happening concurrently] [Treat sections of 2 lines as things happening concurrently]
@ -126,22 +126,22 @@ Here, before we even started to read the amount of references, we've acquired a
continuing and causing them to wait until a lock is released so that another thread can acquire it. With this code, continuing and causing them to wait until a lock is released so that another thread can acquire it. With this code,
it wold go something like this: it wold go something like this:
> Thread 1: Try to acquire a shared lock between threads (lock is free, Thread 1 now has the lock) > Thread 1: Try to acquire a shared lock between threads (lock is free, Thread 1 now has the lock) <br>
> Thread 2: Try to acquire a shared lock between threads (lock is already acquired by Thread 1, we're waiting) > Thread 2: Try to acquire a shared lock between threads (lock is already acquired by Thread 1, we're waiting) <br>
> Thread 1: Read the current amount of references from memory (for example 5) > Thread 1: Read the current amount of references from memory (for example 5) <br>
> Thread 2: Try to acquire the lock (still waiting) > Thread 2: Try to acquire the lock (still waiting) <br>
> Thread 1: Increase this amount by 1 (we're now at 6) > Thread 1: Increase this amount by 1 (we're now at 6) <br>
> Thread 2: Try to acquire the lock (still waiting) > Thread 2: Try to acquire the lock (still waiting) <br>
> Thread 1: Store the increased amount back to memory (we now have 6 in memory) > Thread 1: Store the increased amount back to memory (we now have 6 in memory) <br>
> Thread 2: Try to acquire the lock (still waiting) > Thread 2: Try to acquire the lock (still waiting) <br>
> Thread 1: Release the lock > Thread 1: Release the lock <br>
> Thread 2: Try to acquire the lock (success, Thread 2 now has the lock) > Thread 2: Try to acquire the lock (success, Thread 2 now has the lock) <br>
> Thread 1: Finished (died) > Thread 1: Finished (died) <br>
> Thread 2: Read the current amount of references from memory (read value 6 from memory) > Thread 2: Read the current amount of references from memory (read value 6 from memory) <br>
> Thread 2: Increase this amount by 1 (we're now at 7) > Thread 2: Increase this amount by 1 (we're now at 7) <br>
> Thread 2: Store the increased amount back to memory (we now have 7 in memory) > Thread 2: Store the increased amount back to memory (we now have 7 in memory) <br>
> Thread 2: Release the lock > Thread 2: Release the lock <br>
> Thread 2: Finished (died) > Thread 2: Finished (died) <br>
We can immediately see that this is a lot more complex than having lock-free code, but it did fix our problem, we We can immediately see that this is a lot more complex than having lock-free code, but it did fix our problem, we
managed to correctly increase the reference count across multiple threads. The question is, at what cost? managed to correctly increase the reference count across multiple threads. The question is, at what cost?