www.google.com

lynx www.google.com

www.aws.org

do you think www.aws.org runs on aws?

www.allure.com/story/best-sex-tip-by-zodiac-sign/amp?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a6&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16392879347932&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.allure.com%2Fstory%2Fbest-sex-tip-by-zodiac-sign

For those inter st in the finest writing of all time https://www-allure-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.allure.com/story/best-sex-tip-by-zodiac-sign/amp?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a6&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16392879347932&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.allure.com%2Fstory%2Fbest-sex-tip-by-zodiac-sign

Concurrent queue in C — Idea of the day

Marek's totally not insane idea of the day 11 September 2012 I needed a queue implementation written in C for one of my ever-experimental projects. The complex part was to make it thread-safe - it was going to be used for exchanging data between threads. Usually, I'd just take the doubly linked list implementation from the linux kernel 1 , wrap it in a mutex and quickly move on to another challenge. This time though, I decided to make sure the queue is as efficient as possible. The mutex solution has at least few deficiencies: A queue is a much simpler data structure than way than a list. It has also smaller memory footprint - a FIFO queue requires a single pointer per element ( next ), while doubly linked list requires two ( prev and next ). Mutexes are relatively heavy. There is a better way. My CPU has CMPXCHG instruction for a reason - to enable lock-free al...

Linked on 2015-03-22 23:24:26 | Similar Links