Talk:Multithreading (computer architecture)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Anno UK83.67.105.130 11:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC) i think that this should be merged as it would provide greater laerning potential as one document for cross refencing pourposes[reply]

MAMF: I see no point in combining the general and specific articles related to multi-threading. Having browsed most of the links I feel the current setup is better. A general high-level discussion article, with links for more depth when desired (and back should you start in an article with more detail than you want) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.160.178.134 (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree indeed, but then this page needs to be revamped, as it was originally intended to only cover the Hardware multithreading, thus the previous name before the renaming. As of now, if somebody looks for software multithreading information, he will get very confused by what the page says which is specific to hardware multithreading. I'd suggest to move the detailed hardware material to a separate page, and link to there from here. Samuel Thibault Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:47:17 +0200

"Execution times of a single-thread are not improved but can be degraded." I strongly doubt of this. If there is really only one thread, then it can use the whole computing power and caches for itself. When running two threads that do not share data, that's another story of course Samuel Thibault 16:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That's the point the sentence is trying to make. Dyl (talk) 07:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'll clarify the sentence, because that's not what I understood from it. Samuel Thibault 13:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamuelThibault (talk • contribs)

Errr, no, looking at the list again, running two threads is the point of the previous item in the list: "Multiple threads can interfere with each other when sharing hardware resources such as caches or translation lookaside buffers (TLBs).", here "multiple threads" does not necessarily mean "multiple threads of the same process". —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamuelThibault (talk • contribs) 13:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, I'm tempted to drop the reference to multithreaded cryptography. If we let that one in, then I'm afraid we'll get a big bunch of "multithreaded this" and "multithreaded that", as multithreading is potentially applied to any algorithm... Samuel Thibault 16:41, 22 Feb 2009 (UTC)