4 ms·

I was excusing the difference in overhead caused by making the lock more flexible What are the two functions you're comparing and what is the actual difference

I was excusing the difference in overhead caused by making the lock more flexible What are the two functions you're comparing and what is the actual difference in overhead that you're talking about? a lock that can be shared between processes versus a lock that can't be. This is a dramatic black and white difference, these would be used for two different things. In that case it's apple and oranges, one would be for interprocess communication and one wouldn't. the difference between those two lock styles shouldn't be more than about a microsecond, What are you basing this on? Do you have an examples or benchmarks of the actual calls and their timings? fine for a lock that's only used 100 times a second. Again, latency isn't about how many times something is called per second. That would matter for throughput.

Dylan16807 5mo ago
> What are the two functions you're comparing Go ask this comment, because I'm continuing their comparison: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48125795 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48125795 > In that case it's apple and oranges, one would be for interprocess communication and one wouldn't. The whole point of the complaint was wtallis claiming the inter-process-capable lock was being used for locks that don't need it! That's the foundation of this conversation! > What are you basing this on? Basic coding knowledge and an assumption of competency. There's no good reason for it to slow down more than that when it's used the same way. If you have a reason go ahead and tell me. > Again, latency isn't about how many times something is called per second. That would matter for throughput. I addressed both. The extra latency for using an overly capable lock should be negligible. That's not the problem anyone is worried about.
- CyberDildonics 5mo ago
  Basic coding knowledge and an assumption of competency. This is just saying "I just know", but what specific function and basic timings are you going off of? If you don't know, why are you so sure of the numbers? The whole point of the complaint was wtallis claiming the inter-process-capable lock was being used for locks that don't need it! That's the foundation of this conversation! They were saying it's rare to need IPC lock for video games and I don't think that's true, then I gave a scenario where you would use one.
  - Dylan16807 5mo ago
    If you're not actually using it between processes, the overhead could be as small as an extra conditional. For an upper bound I think a couple wasted syscalls makes sense. Why would it be significantly slower than that? But whatever, let's focus on the actual point: > They were saying it's rare to need IPC lock for video games and I don't think that's true, then I gave a scenario where you would use one. And I was pointing out that a voice IPC lock is still "rare" when we use the most appropriate definition of "rare" for this context. In this context of worrying that using the wrong kind of lock will slow the game down, how often we're using the lock matters. If we go 50 million CPU cycles between uses, it's "rare".
    - CyberDildonics 5mo ago
      how often we're using the lock matters. No, latency is what matters. And I was pointing out that a voice IPC lock is still "rare" when we use the most appropriate definition of "rare" This isn't really a point with explanation, it's just you saying 'nu uh', even though that was just a single example.
      - Dylan16807 5mo ago
        The post you originally responded to was comparing the general idea of locks that can work between processes and ones that can't. And it was criticizing the efficiency of the former, which is a measure of throughput. There's no reason for an upgraded lock to significantly change in latency. That's not what they were worried about when criticizing the idea of using the former lock as the main lock type in a game. Your most used locks need throughput. So no, latency is not what matters. And I've explained why I say that in multiple ways, while you haven't given any explanation for why you're focusing on latency. When they asked "how often" in the middle of that criticism, they're not looking for an example that sprinkles in a couple calls, they're looking for something that puts serious load onto the lock. Any answer that is once per frame or less is not properly addressing the question.
        5mo ago

Dylan16807 5mo ago

> What are the two functions you're comparing Go ask this comment, because I'm continuing their comparison: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48125795 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48125795 > In that case it's apple and oranges, one would be for interprocess communication and one wouldn't. The whole point of the complaint was wtallis claiming the inter-process-capable lock was being used for locks that don't need it! That's the foundation of this conversation! > What are you basing this on? Basic coding knowledge and an assumption of competency. There's no good reason for it to slow down more than that when it's used the same way. If you have a reason go ahead and tell me. > Again, latency isn't about how many times something is called per second. That would matter for throughput. I addressed both. The extra latency for using an overly capable lock should be negligible. That's not the problem anyone is worried about.

CyberDildonics 5mo ago
Basic coding knowledge and an assumption of competency. This is just saying "I just know", but what specific function and basic timings are you going off of? If you don't know, why are you so sure of the numbers? The whole point of the complaint was wtallis claiming the inter-process-capable lock was being used for locks that don't need it! That's the foundation of this conversation! They were saying it's rare to need IPC lock for video games and I don't think that's true, then I gave a scenario where you would use one.
- Dylan16807 5mo ago
  If you're not actually using it between processes, the overhead could be as small as an extra conditional. For an upper bound I think a couple wasted syscalls makes sense. Why would it be significantly slower than that? But whatever, let's focus on the actual point: > They were saying it's rare to need IPC lock for video games and I don't think that's true, then I gave a scenario where you would use one. And I was pointing out that a voice IPC lock is still "rare" when we use the most appropriate definition of "rare" for this context. In this context of worrying that using the wrong kind of lock will slow the game down, how often we're using the lock matters. If we go 50 million CPU cycles between uses, it's "rare".
  - CyberDildonics 5mo ago
    how often we're using the lock matters. No, latency is what matters. And I was pointing out that a voice IPC lock is still "rare" when we use the most appropriate definition of "rare" This isn't really a point with explanation, it's just you saying 'nu uh', even though that was just a single example.
    - Dylan16807 5mo ago
      The post you originally responded to was comparing the general idea of locks that can work between processes and ones that can't. And it was criticizing the efficiency of the former, which is a measure of throughput. There's no reason for an upgraded lock to significantly change in latency. That's not what they were worried about when criticizing the idea of using the former lock as the main lock type in a game. Your most used locks need throughput. So no, latency is not what matters. And I've explained why I say that in multiple ways, while you haven't given any explanation for why you're focusing on latency. When they asked "how often" in the middle of that criticism, they're not looking for an example that sprinkles in a couple calls, they're looking for something that puts serious load onto the lock. Any answer that is once per frame or less is not properly addressing the question.
      - 5mo ago