From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 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 0E812BC50 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2006 22:27:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.enyo.de (mail.enyo.de [212.9.189.167]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k8FKRPrx015168 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2006 22:27:28 +0200 Received: from deneb.vpn.enyo.de ([212.9.189.177] helo=deneb.enyo.de) by mail.enyo.de with esmtp id 1GOKHJ-0002Yi-EZ; Fri, 15 Sep 2006 22:27:13 +0200 Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GOKH5-0004zc-8z; Fri, 15 Sep 2006 22:26:59 +0200 From: Florian Weimer To: "Jim Battin" Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] The Future Possibility of Concurrent Garbage Collection? References: Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 22:26:59 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Jim Battin's message of "Thu, 14 Sep 2006 10:40:13 -0500") Message-ID: <87odtg3mgc.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 450B0CAE.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 marshalling:01 advent:98 garbage:01 garbage:01 caml-list:01 florian:03 seems:03 seems:03 concurrent:03 concurrent:03 processors:04 ilp:07 execute:08 i'm:08 * Jim Battin: > It seems Moore's law is taking us in the direction of more cores per > microprocessor with less effort placed on exploring ILP. With the > advent of multi-core processors, and their inevitable ubiquity, are > there any plans, considerations, or ideas for a concurrent garbage > collector in Ocaml? Right now, concurrent garbage collection seems to offer significantly less throughput. I'm not sure if it's worth all the effort. Another thing that might be interesting is a way to execute multiple run-times with independent heaps in a single process, with Ada-style rendezvous betweeen them and a special low-overhead form of marshalling.