3 ms·
> Wait. Oh no. Some game developer somewhere is going to try to use this as a synchronization primitive, aren't they. Please don't. The world has enough cursed
by tectonic 5y ago
> Wait. Oh no. Some game developer somewhere is going to try to use this as a synchronization primitive, aren't they. Please don't. The world has enough cursed code already. Don't do it. Stop it. Noooooooooooooooo
- galgalesh 5y agoCross-core communication without going through the kernel seems like a very useful performance feature for games. Am I missing something or is it somewhat likely this will be "abused" by games?
- lilyball 5y agoThis thing communicates at 1MB/s. A “performance feature” it ain’t.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- dijit 5y agothroughput and latency are different measures. Games usually live in the realm of latency.
- passivate 5y agoThat begs the question, what is the latency, and what kind of feature would you anticipate this could be useful for?
- mukesh610 5y agoSynchronization primitives AFAIK don't need to transfer huge amounts of data in a short time. One bit for every "okay" signal would suffice. At the given speed you can perform 8 million syncs per second between two threads.
- smoldesu 5y agowho cares, it's not like you're going to use it to send textures from one thread to another
- Matthias247 5y agoYou can already communicate between apps without going through the kernel by using shared memory - with a much higher bandwidth. And even just the regular write/sendmsg/etc calls are probably more efficient despite going through the kernel due to being able to carry much more bytes. This was really just a good joke touching how the game industry in the past used non-common hardware features for optimization purposes.
- jonny_eh 5y agoEven if it were a performance saver (it isn't), it'd break when new silicon is released with this issue fixed.