Here is my new invention of a scalable algorithm..

Hello..


Here is my new invention of a scalable algorithm..

I am a white arab, and i think i am more smart,
and i think i am like a genius, because i have again just invented
a new scalable algorithm, but i will briefly talk about the following 
best scalable reader-writer lock inventions, the first one is the following:

Scalable Read-mostly Synchronization Using Passive Reader-Writer Locks

https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/atc14/atc14-paper-liu.pdf

You will notice that it has a first weakness that it is for TSO hardware 
memory model and the second weakness is that the writers latency is very 
expensive when there is few readers.

And here is the other best scalable reader-writer lock invention of 
Facebook:

SharedMutex is a reader-writer lock.  It is small, very fast, scalable
on multi-core

Read here:

https://github.com/facebook/folly/blob/master/folly/SharedMutex.h


But you will notice that the weakness of this scalable reader-writer 
lock is that the priority can only be configured as the following:

SharedMutexReadPriority gives priority to readers,
SharedMutexWritePriority gives priority to writers.


So the weakness of this scalable reader-writer lock is that
you can have starvation with it.

So this is why i have just invented a scalable algorithm that is
a scalable reader-writer lock that is better than the above and that is 
starvation-free and that is fair and that has a small writers latency.

So i think mine is the best and i will sell many of my scalable 
algorithms to software companies such as Microsoft or Google or Embardero..


What is it to be an inventor of many scalable algorithms ?

The Holy Grail of parallel programming is to provide good speedup while
hiding or avoiding the pitfalls of concurrency. You have to understand 
it to be able to understand what i am doing, i am an inventor of
many scalable algorithms and there implementations, but how can we 
define the kind of inventor like me? i think there is the following 
kinds of inventors, the ones that are PhD researchers and inventors like 
Albert Einstein, and the ones that are engineers and inventors like 
Nikola Tesla, and i think that i am of the kind of inventor of Nikola 
Tesla, i am not a PhD researcher like Albert Einstein, i am like an 
engineer who invented many scalable algorithms and there 
implementations, so i am like the following inventor that we call Nikola 
Tesla:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla

But i think that both those PhD researchers that are inventors and those 
Engineers that are inventors are powerful.

You have to understand deeply what is to invent my scalable algorithms
and there implementations so that to understand that it is powerful,
i give you an example: So i have invented a scalable algorithm that is a 
scalable Mutex that is remarkable and that is the Holy Grail of scalable 
Locks, it has the following characteristics, read my following thoughts
to understand:

About fair and unfair locking..

I have just read the following lead engineer at Amazon:

Highly contended and fair locking in Java

https://brooker.co.za/blog/2012/09/10/locking.html

So as you are noticing that you can use unfair locking that can have 
starvation or fair locking that is slower than unfair locking.

I think that Microsoft synchronization objects like the Windows critical 
section uses unfair locking, but they still can have starvation.

But i think that this not the good way to do, because i am an inventor 
and i have invented a scalable Fast Mutex that is much more powerful , 
because with my Fast Mutex you are capable to tune the "fairness" of the 
lock, and my Fast Mutex is capable of more than that, read about it on 
my following thoughts:

More about research and software development..

I have just looked at the following new video:

Why is coding so hard...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAAXwrgd1U8

I am understanding this video, but i have to explain my work:

I am not like this techlead in the video above, because i am also an 
"inventor" that has invented many scalable algorithms and there 
implementions, i am also inventing effective abstractions, i give you an 
example:

Read the following of the senior research scientist that is called Dave 
Dice:

Preemption tolerant MCS locks

https://blogs.oracle.com/dave/preemption-tolerant-mcs-locks

As you are noticing he is trying to invent a new lock that is preemption 
tolerant, but his lock lacks some important characteristics, this is why 
i have just invented a new Fast Mutex that is adaptative and that is 
much much better and i think mine is the "best", and i think you will 
not find it anywhere, my new Fast Mutex has the following characteristics:

1- Starvation-free
2- Tunable fairness
3- It keeps efficiently and very low its cache coherence traffic
4- Very good fast path performance
5- And it has a good preemption tolerance.
6- It is faster than scalable MCS lock

this is how i am an "inventor", and i have also invented other scalable 
algorithms such as a scalable reference counting with efficient support 
for weak references, and i have invented a  fully scalable Threadpool, 
and i have also invented a Fully scalable FIFO queue, and i have
also invented other scalable algorithms and there implementations, and i 
think i will sell some of them to Microsoft or to Google or Embarcadero 
or such software companies.

And here is my other previous new invention of a scalable algorithm:

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. And i think i will sell my new algorithm
of a generally scalable counting networks to Microsoft or Google or 
Embarcadero or such software companies.

So you have to be careful with the actual counting networks algorithm 
that is not generally scalable.

My other new invention is my scalable reference counting and here it is:

https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/scalable-reference-counting-with-efficient-support-for-weak-references

And here is my just new invention of a scalable algorithm:

My Scalable RWLock that works across processes and threads was updated 
to version 4.62

Now i think it is working correctly in both Windows and Linux..

You can download it from my website here:

https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/scalable-rwlock-that-works-accross-processes-and-threads

More about me as an inventor of many scalable algorithms..

I am a white arab and i think i am like a genius, because i have 
invented many scalable algorithms and there implementations, and look 
for example at my just new invention of a scalable algorithm here:

https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/scalable-rwlock-that-works-accross-processes-and-threads

As you have noticed, you have to be like a genius to be able to invent
my above scalable algorithm of a scalable RWLock, because it has the 
following characteristics:

1- It is Scalable
2- It is Starvation-free
3- It is fair
4- It can be used across processes and threads
5- It can be used as a scalable Lock across processes and threads
    by using my scalable AMLock on the writers side, or it can be
    used as a scalable RWLock.

I am using my scalable Lock that is called scalable AMLock on the 
writers side.

Here is why scalable Locks are really important:

https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2698990

So all in all it is a really good invention of mine.

Read my previous thoughts:

Here is how to use my new invention that is my scalable RWLock
across processes:

Just create an scalable rwlock object by giving a name in one process by 
calling the constructor like this:

scalable_rwlock.create('amine');


And you can use the scalable rwlock object from another process by 
calling the constructor by using the name like this:

scalable_rwlock.create('amine');


So as you are noticing i have abstracted it efficiently..


Read the rest of my previous thoughts:

My new invention of a Scalable RWLock that works across processes and 
threads is here, and now it works on both Windows and Linux..

Please download my source code and take a look at how i am making it 
work across processes by using FNV1a hash on both process ID and thread 
ID, FNV1a has a good dispersion, and FNV1a hash permits also my RWLock 
to be scalable.


You can download it from my website here:

https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/scalable-rwlock-that-works-accross-processes-and-threads

Description:

This is my invention of a fast, and scalable and starvation-free and 
fair and lightweight Multiple-Readers-Exclusive-Writer Lock called 
LW_RWLockX, it works across processes and threads.

The parameters of the constructor are: first parameter is the name of 
the scalable RWLock to be used across processes, if the name is empty, 
it will only be used across threads. The second parameter is the size of 
the array of the readers, so if the size of the array is equal to the 
number of parallel readers, so it will be scalable, but if the number of 
readers are greater than the size of the array , you will start to have 
contention. The third parameter is the size of the array of my scalable 
Lock that is called AMLock, the number of threads can go beyond the size 
of the array of the scalable AMLock, please look at the source code of 
my scalable algorithms to understand.

I have also used my following implementation of FNV1a hash function to 
make my new variants of RWLocks scalable (since FNV1a is a hash 
algorithm that has good dispersion):

function FNV1aHash(key:int64): UInt64;

var
i: Integer;
key1:uint64;

const

FNV_offset_basis: UInt64 = 14695981039346656037;
FNV_prime: UInt64 = 1099511628211;

begin

//FNV-1a hash

Result := FNV_offset_basis;

for i := 1 to 8 do
begin
key1:=(key shr ((i-1)*8)) and $00000000000000ff;
Result := (Result xor key1) * FNV_prime;
end;

end;

- Platform: Windows, Unix and Linux on x86

Required FPC switches: -O3 -Sd

-Sd for delphi mode....

Required Delphi switches: -$H+ -DDelphi

For Delphi XE-XE7 and Delphi tokyo use the -DXE switch

You can configure it as follows from inside defines.inc file:

{$DEFINE CPU32} and {$DEFINE Windows32} for 32 bit systems
{$DEFINE CPU64} and {$DEFINE Windows64} for 64 bit systems


Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.