From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id p2PKRQQO003566 for ; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 21:27:32 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAPH5jE0+3JIE/2dsb2JhbAClY3eITbsqhWkEjHWDVA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,244,1299452400"; d="scan'208";a="79105812" Received: from vs.philou.ch ([62.220.146.4]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 25 Mar 2011 21:27:32 +0100 Received: from [192.168.1.120] (85-218-16-131.dclient.lsne.ch [85.218.16.131]) by vs.philou.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6717C232B99; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 21:27:31 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Philippe Strauss In-Reply-To: <4D8CB859.9040709@inescporto.pt> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 21:27:30 +0100 Cc: Fabrice Le Fessant , Gerd Stolpmann , caml-list@inria.fr Message-Id: <7E7486ED-A8E7-478F-B39E-80C45A614CE8@philou.ch> References: <2054357367.219171.1300974318806.JavaMail.root@zmbs4.inria.fr> <4D8BD02D.1010505@inria.fr> <4D8C73C8.6020801@inescporto.pt> <1301055903.8429.314.camel@thinkpad> <341494683.237537.1301057887481.JavaMail.root@zmbs4.inria.fr> <4D8C944A.9060601@inria.fr> <4D8CB859.9040709@inescporto.pt> To: Hugo Ferreira X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by walapai.inria.fr id p2PKRQQO003566 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Efficient OCaml multicore -- roadmap? Le 25 mars 2011 à 16:44, Hugo Ferreira a écrit : > Hi, > > Don't mean to drag this on but... > > On 03/25/2011 01:10 PM, Fabrice Le Fessant wrote: >> On 03/25/2011 01:58 PM, Hugo Ferreira wrote: >>>>> Assuming all shared data structures are immutable is it possible to: >> >> Well, Java has fully multi-threaded garbage collection, so there is no >> point that it is possible to do it. >> >> The problem is that it has a cost, and the cost is a huge slowdown on >> mono-threaded programs. Since most OCaml programs are mono-threaded, and >> only few programs would really benefit from multi-threading, we are >> trying to come up with a solution that would satisfy both worlds. >> Mono-threaded programs would still run as fast (possibly using a >> non-reentrant version of the runtime, to avoid the cost of TLS if it is >> visible), and multi-threaded programs can be written easily. >> > > Personally I think this is an "impossible" feat. > Why not simply allow for the existence of two GC's and let > the programmer select the one that is best for the application? > I second this one. Seems GC and caml are heavily intricated, but modularizing this part seems a future proof investment in effort.