[
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: | 2006-03-08 (07:08) |
From: | Bardur Arantsson <spam@s...> |
Subject: | Re: STM support in OCaml |
skaller wrote: > On Tue, 2006-03-07 at 19:05 +0000, Asfand Yar Qazi wrote: [--snip--] > I point out that in fact, under the right conditions -- lots > of processors and lots of variables -- it will probably provide better > performance too. However this is hard to test -- not many > of us have access to >2 cores on the same board. There certainly > no way POSIX can deliver good performance: mutexes have to be > synchronisation points and that requires ALL the CPUs to > flush their caches -- it doesn't scale. Interestingly, DragonflyBSD seems to be moving toward a slightly weaker (relative to mutex) form of synchronisation which seems somewhat similar to STMs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serializing_tokens I haven't look at it in detail, but it might be possible to use these to implement STM in a mutex-free (cheap) way. (Though you might need some level of hardware support unless you're content with page granularity 'exclusion'). Just thought I'd throw that in there. :) Cheers, -- Bardur Arantsson <bardurREMOVE@THISimada.sdu.dk> <bardurREMOVE@THISscientician.net> - Am I paying for this abuse or is it extra? Edmund Blackadder, 'Blackadder'