Browse thread
Where's my non-classical shared memory concurrency technology?
[
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: | -- (:) |
| From: | Jon Harrop <jon@f...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Re: Where's my non-classical shared memory concurrency technology? |
On Monday 26 May 2008 16:29:53 Damien Doligez wrote: > On 2008-05-21, at 10:06, Martin Berger wrote: > > Here I disagree. Shared memory concurrency is a specific form > > of message passing: Writing to a memory cell is in fact sending > > a message to that cell carrying two items, the new value and a > > return channel that is used to inform the writer that sending > > has succeeded, and likewise for reading. > > This is completely wrong. A few machines have a simple model like > that, but they were all built in the last century. Nowadays, writing > to memory is more like broadcasting a message and having no idea when > it will arrive at each destination. And if you write to another piece > of memory, you don't know in what order the updates will become > visible to a given processor. > > You are neglecting a very important parameter, which is called the > "memory model" of your multiprocessor. The memory model of a multiprocessor is just a specific form of communication fabric. That does not disagree with Martin's statement. So he was certainly not "completely wrong". At worst it was a simplification. I suspect he simply did not aticipate anyone treating his comment as a seminal work on multicore computing. -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?e