Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
Efficiency of let/and
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Alan Falloon <Al.Falloon@s...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Ant: Efficiency of let/and
Brian Hurt wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, skaller wrote:
>> I personally don't think of this as real parallelism,
>> that's something you get on a machine with K's or M's
>> of processing units .. eg the human eye.
> Heh.  We've hit the point where we have so many transistors on a chip 
> we literally don't know what to do with them all- we have no idea how 
> to spend the transistors to provide more than very small incremental 
> performance improvements to single-threaded execution.  Which is why 
> the sudden interest in parallelism (Symmetric Mult-Threading aka 
> Hyperthreading, multi-core chips, etc.).  The problem is that the 
> theory on how to write race condition/deadlock/livelock -free code 
> isn't there, to my knowledge (someone please prove me wrong).

I did see a paper called "Composable Memory Transactions" by some of the 
more well know Haskell researchers  its avaliable at

The idea is to introduce new concurrency abstractions (a replacement for 
mutex and friends) that are composable to make it easy to reason about 
thread-safe sections in isolation.