From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id B759CBB81 for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 07:53:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j8R5r2gG029588 for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 07:53:02 +0200 Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA21660 for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 07:53:01 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.203]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j8R5qx0t029583 for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 07:53:00 +0200 Received: from rosella (ppp16-174.lns2.syd7.internode.on.net [59.167.16.174]) by smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j8R5qswV023039; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:22:56 +0930 (CST) (envelope-from skaller@users.sourceforge.net) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Ant: Efficiency of let/and From: skaller To: Brian Hurt Cc: Stefan Monnier , caml-list In-Reply-To: References: <20050926043240.24009.qmail@web26809.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <87hdc724wo.fsf-monnier+gmane.comp.lang.caml.inria@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:52:54 +1000 Message-Id: <1127800374.31518.167.camel@rosella> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.1.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 4338DE3E.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 4338DE3B.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 parallelism:01 parallelism:01 wrote:01 sourceforge:01 functions:01 thread:02 let:03 brian:03 complex:04 parallel:04 computing:06 core:06 execute:07 efficiency:07 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 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. 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. 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. -- John Skaller Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net