Petr Baudis: <[email protected]>: >On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 12:52:12AM -0700, David Fotland wrote: >> Yes, root parallelization with some sharing. >> http://www.personeel.unimaas.nl/G-Chaslot/papers/parallelMCTS.pdf said it >> was good and I tried it and it works well. > >The paper is not so relevant now, since the standard method of most >programs is lockless tree parallelization, which is not covered. >The locking overhead is quite significant, I'd expect, as locking >instructions can AFAIK take hundreds of cycles.
With spin-lock or hardware test-and-set instructions, locking overhead is very small. >That said, root parallelization overperforming sequential simulations >is something I never managed to reproduce and that seems rather >surprising to me. It might have something to do with the way priors >are done in the tree or some other engine-specific factors. I believe IBM Power processor's architecture may caused the super-linear acceralaton. Hideki -- Hideki Kato <mailto:[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
