From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 441FFBC6B for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 17:04:32 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao8CAAR/hEdQRFuw/2dsb2JhbACpdw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.24,263,1196636400"; d="scan'208";a="6459244" Received: from furbychan.cocan.org ([80.68.91.176]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 09 Jan 2008 17:04:32 +0100 Received: from rich by furbychan.cocan.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1JCdPm-0005Mj-Rc; Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:04:27 +0000 Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 16:04:26 +0000 To: Daniel Andor Cc: Brian Hurt , caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Parallelism with threads Message-ID: <20080109160423.GA20285@annexia.org> References: <200801081456.49677.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <4d5f7bec0801081131u2ebfae8aia0b13564d13b03c6@mail.gmail.com> <4783D640.7080800@janestcapital.com> <4d5f7bec0801090646q2e6320b8wc3f3d196066bf414@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4d5f7bec0801090646q2e6320b8wc3f3d196066bf414@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) From: Richard Jones X-Spam: no; 0.00; parallelism:01 sockets:01 erlang:01 model:01 ocaml:01 yup:01 shm:98 threads:01 wrote:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 data:02 sys:03 typed:04 mpi:04 On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 09:46:39AM -0500, Daniel Andor wrote: > On Jan 8, 2008 3:00 PM, Brian Hurt wrote: > > The heaps wouldn't be able to see each other, but they'd be able to > > communicate via light weight (and strongly typed) message passing, and you > > wouldn't have to dink around with sockets, pipes, MPI, or simiar "heavy > > weight" solutions, so it'd be simpler, and possibly faster. This is not > > unlike the Erlang model, in fact. > > Are there any solutions that do not involve message passing? I have > heaps of data that barely fits into memory, and sharing that memory is > the most straightforward way to process it. > > If sharing process space is out, are there other ways to share memory? > How about sys V SHM or MMAP, or variations -- how would that work > under OCaml? Yup, see: http://merjis.com/developers/ancient Rich. -- Richard Jones Red Hat