From: Brian Hurt <bhurt@spnz.org>
To: skaller <skaller@users.sourceforge.net>
Cc: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>,
caml-list <caml-list@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Ant: Efficiency of let/and
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 08:06:30 -0500 (CDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0509270750180.9226@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1127800374.31518.167.camel@rosella>
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, skaller wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-09-26 at 11:30 -0500, Brian Hurt wrote:
>
>> I'm not even sure how much extra efficiency is there to be had. Obviously
>> it'd be hard "thread" calls to complex functions,
>
> Why? Hyperthreading allows two completely independent processes
> to execute on a hyperthread enabled P4 .. the hardware can already
> do it .. even better with dual core.
Creating a new kernel-level process/thread (required to get code executing
on a different processor or pseudo-processor) is generally expensive. You
don't want to do it except for very large functions. And then, once you
do have the second thread of execution, you now have all the fun of
multithreaded code- race conditions and deadlocks and livelocks, oh my.
I have contemplated writting a purely-functional (no imperitive) language
that does micro-threads ala cilk- but it's more work than I really want to
put in to that project.
>
> There is no lack of small scale low level parallelism in
> modern computing systems, just a lack of software that knows
> how to take advantage of it.
The benefit may be there, theoretically, but practical considerations may
make it not worth the effort to go after the benefit.
>
> There are plenty of places in an average program where one
> can determine parallel execution would be ok, so it is really
> a lack of capability in the software.
>
> 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).
Brian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-09-27 13:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-09-25 13:31 Brian Hurt
2005-09-25 14:47 ` [Caml-list] " Jon Harrop
2005-09-26 4:32 ` Ant: " Martin Chabr
2005-09-26 5:24 ` Fernando Alegre
2005-09-26 5:56 ` William Lovas
2005-09-26 7:17 ` Bill Wood
2005-09-26 20:59 ` Ant: " Martin Chabr
2005-09-26 13:22 ` Brian Hurt
2005-09-26 16:05 ` Ant: " Stefan Monnier
2005-09-26 16:30 ` [Caml-list] " Brian Hurt
2005-09-27 5:52 ` skaller
2005-09-27 13:06 ` Brian Hurt [this message]
2005-09-27 13:24 ` Alan Falloon
2005-09-27 15:24 ` Stefan Monnier
2005-09-27 16:11 ` Brian Hurt
2005-09-27 5:32 ` skaller
2005-09-27 15:21 ` Stefan Monnier
2005-09-26 17:04 ` Ant: [Caml-list] " Mackenzie Straight
2005-09-26 17:05 ` Marius Nita
2005-09-26 17:36 ` David McClain
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.63.0509270750180.9226@localhost.localdomain \
--to=bhurt@spnz.org \
--cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
--cc=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca \
--cc=skaller@users.sourceforge.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox