From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12F5D7FA56 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 02:05:45 +0200 (CEST) Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of jfc@MIT.EDU) identity=pra; client-ip=18.9.25.12; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="jfc@mit.edu"; x-sender="jfc@MIT.EDU"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: domain of jfc@mit.edu designates 18.9.25.12 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=18.9.25.12; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="jfc@mit.edu"; x-sender="jfc@mit.edu"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1" Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@dmz-mailsec-scanner-1.mit.edu) identity=helo; client-ip=18.9.25.12; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="jfc@mit.edu"; x-sender="postmaster@dmz-mailsec-scanner-1.mit.edu"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AsECAFBN0FMSCRkMm2dsb2JhbABZ1SkKAYEFFg8BAQEBAQgJCwkUKYQEAQQBOj8QC0Y8GwaITQgDugqGVxcYjzMHhEYBBJstmCQ X-IPAS-Result: AsECAFBN0FMSCRkMm2dsb2JhbABZ1SkKAYEFFg8BAQEBAQgJCwkUKYQEAQQBOj8QC0Y8GwaITQgDugqGVxcYjzMHhEYBBJstmCQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,720,1400018400"; d="scan'208";a="72600382" Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-1.mit.edu ([18.9.25.12]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 24 Jul 2014 02:05:43 +0200 X-AuditID: 1209190c-f79ef6d000005dd6-e2-53d04dd5eaa5 Received: from mailhub-auth-3.mit.edu ( [18.9.21.43]) (using TLS with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by dmz-mailsec-scanner-1.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id E1.F8.24022.5DD40D35; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 20:05:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) by mailhub-auth-3.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id s6O05e1H003630; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 20:05:41 -0400 Received: from atropos (pool-108-20-186-221.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [108.20.186.221]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as jfc@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id s6O05WoA012780 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 23 Jul 2014 20:05:40 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <21456.19915.45180.915211@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 20:05:31 -0400 From: "John F. Carr" To: Raoul Duke Cc: OCaml In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 8.1.2 under 24.3.1 (amd64-portbld-freebsd10.0) X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprMKsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixCmqrXvV90KwQf8nK4tPOzawWByf/ILJ gclj56y77B6TXhxiCWCK4rJJSc3JLEst0rdL4Mq40VBWMJe1YvH9KWwNjNNZuhg5OSQETCQ+ vtoDZYtJXLi3nq2LkYtDSGA2k8Sd0+2MEM5GRon1bzezQDjnmCSuzljPCtLCKyAocXLmE7B2 ZgEtiRv/XjJB2PIS29/OYYaosZR42D4bzGYRUJW4eXYhG4jNJqAksen1DbC4iICixIEb+1gh euUkNjVOZe9i5OAQFlCX+HAuGCTMKRAo8ePiZSaQsJBAgMS1FyYQR1tLLNnynnkCo+AsJAfN QnLQLCQHLWBkXsUom5JbpZubmJlTnJqsW5ycmJeXWqRrqJebWaKXmlK6iREcvJI8OxjfHFQ6 xCjAwajEw9ux93ywEGtiWXFl7iFGSQ4mJVHeKbYXgoX4kvJTKjMSizPii0pzUosPMUpwMCuJ 8N6zAcrxpiRWVqUW5cOkpDlYlMR531pbBQsJpCeWpGanphakFsFkdTk4BJZN22ghcG7P3WOM Uix5+XmpShK863yAJgkWpaanVqRl5pQg1DNxcIJs4wHadhukhre4IDG3ODMdIn8KaN6i/S+7 mYTABkmJ83KAFAmAFGWU5sHNgaWlV4ziQH8K89aBVPEAUxrcpFdAS5iAlrxKOA+ypCQRISXV wGimxyayNPTXh/AL1R+1JYIT/nbNijyd/bf8m7z5mrJ91yqflQkny6nde/ONR4KB5+uiVYVR /0WNXzeUCgcnrWjVmqAbdt86f1XbgfiLd3UC1oeHn1LTsSx7Kd8a0c2ivSjxamSkifJ/iRCv 4yn3Lr8sV3RbdN5OS+3ulT86LH/X8L9q2rqtWomlOCPRUIu5qDgRAHAEG2kmAwAA Subject: Re: [Caml-list] concurrent gc? Most programs spend a minority of their time in garbage collection. Even if the new GC thread did not slow down the main program, possible speedup would be less than 2x, probably well under 50%. For technical reasons, offloading major collections in OCaml is easier than offloading minor collections, so the potential benefit is less. > extremely clueless question warning, both generally technically but > also vis-a-vie ocaml specifically: > > so even if ocaml can't so easily be made to support multiple threads > of ocaml code, could the gc be moved off to another thread? so that it > could run on another core. would that be of any benefit?