From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,edda2b296e2577cf
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!n32g2000pre.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Anh Vo <anhvofrcaus@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: GNAT's Protected Objects
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 13:38:55 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <4af1a5f4-7bf3-47ee-af67-db50e589e7a8@n32g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
References: <ib9mv1$23q$1@tornado.tornevall.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 149.32.224.33
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1289252335 26695 127.0.0.1 (8 Nov 2010 21:38:55
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 21:38:55 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: n32g2000pre.googlegroups.com; posting-host=149.32.224.33;
 posting-account=Qh2kiQoAAADpCLlhT_KTYoGO8dU3n4I6
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; GTB6.6;
 .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR
 3.0.04506.648; .NET CLR 3.5.21022; InfoPath.2; MS-RTC LM 8),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15388
Date: 2010-11-08T13:38:55-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Nov 8, 12:34=A0pm, Jeffrey Carter
<spam.jrcarter....@spam.not.acm.org> wrote:
>
> If I use a Linda-like approach, with a protected procedure doling out (Ro=
w,
> Column) pairs on demand, a single task is always fastest, and using multi=
ple
> tasks slows things down. This wasn't what I expected, and wondered if thi=
s is
> inherent in such an approach, or specific to GNAT's way of implementing
> protected objects.
>

How may tasks used, two or four, when slowness was observed when
compared to simple task? I will be supprised if the answer is two. It
is logically expected that two tasks should perform better than single
task. However, when it comes to four or greater task, the result may
not be true due to task switching cost.

I would be glad to test it on my two core CPU mahine if the your
little program is posted.

Anh Vo