From: Andy Newman <andy.newman@silverbrookresearch.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Got thread experience?
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:30:37 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200710252331.l9PNVSRO004002@haides.silverbrookresearch.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <df49a7370710251444wf691cfh36dc9f11402129a9@mail.gmail.com>
roger peppe wrote:
> threads on inmos transputers didn't share memory. the threads
> were scheduled by the processor itself (zero context-switch time,
> which was nice), but could just as easily be on separate processors
occam processes (aka threads) can share state but the language
enforces read-only access (unless you turn off that checking
which you often needed to given limitations in its implementation).
State sharing, of course, doesn't work when processes are mapped
to different processors (although the machine I used to use had a
large chunk of memory shared between the CPUs where we kept data
we didn't want to move around).
The transputer's context switch did have a small cost but it was
fast for its time. Three registers written to the on-chip RAM.
Given the nature of occam, and the transputer being an engine
for running occam, efficient support for lots of processes is
a must. These days people seem to be getting all excited about
it again.
> i don't *think* you could pass shared references around, but
> it was a long time ago.
It was possible. But like yourself its been a long time since
I did all this (twenty years) and the details are sketchy but
we definitely passed addresses down channels and did shared
accesses (no pesky MMU to get in the way :)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-10-25 23:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-10-25 20:48 don bailey
2007-10-25 20:51 ` erik quanstrom
2007-10-25 21:01 ` don bailey
2007-10-25 21:06 ` erik quanstrom
2007-10-25 21:13 ` don bailey
2007-10-25 21:17 ` erik quanstrom
2007-10-25 21:17 ` Pietro Gagliardi
2007-10-25 21:05 ` Pietro Gagliardi
2007-10-25 21:12 ` don bailey
2007-10-25 21:28 ` Charles Forsyth
2007-10-25 21:44 ` roger peppe
2007-10-25 23:30 ` Andy Newman [this message]
2007-10-26 15:30 ` don bailey
2007-10-25 22:12 ` David Leimbach
2007-10-25 21:35 ` Sape Mullender
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=200710252331.l9PNVSRO004002@haides.silverbrookresearch.com \
--to=andy.newman@silverbrookresearch.com \
--cc=9fans@cse.psu.edu \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).