Browse thread
Efficiency of let/and
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: | 2005-09-27 (13:24) |
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 http://got.net/~landauer/cs/fp/ea8-composablememory_stm.pdf 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.