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 mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D636BC57 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:06:43 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArwBAA+F9ExKfVM0k2dsb2JhbACUUTGFeQGHNlMIFQEBAQEJCQoJEQMfqFuJZIIYhT0uiFYBAQMFhUIEimE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,280,1288566000"; d="scan'208";a="81986271" Received: from mail-gw0-f52.google.com ([74.125.83.52]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 30 Nov 2010 14:06:43 +0100 Received: by gwj18 with SMTP id 18so265688gwj.39 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 05:06:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=6q6tyycTmpg6RgSknPall/7exN3FKFTHz5xnbN0jU5k=; b=rhYS55GBEVS4VX/VYjGhqnYh+b9rzYsb8Jfj9oPcHdIFLROskutk5OC49hU6XpZHR3 BBC+uZoTxgDzCZLYVSAcNP060+wM5OV0DoFhvmb9F4A4YnesV6mXzyMJaJIxuM+/Wmgt wWbnMfNK53CtFHSoAGSdJEzdXIlx2kc/rABz0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=bhr0xilcJxw+EbPkoASCGyZ4jBdAjEBG2+6d+OHhn0uubVLYCY5pMhaNMuGgA1XVkY 5sg2GwNOk344HR2Vrz6vi027zMvo5BSoMbsHWpeKUgK72Cuaf+cxFz2gSbb8iGlAkXBY NjHH0nDqvvAsjFqtiCrIg81TyRqpDTobt4g1M= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.90.71.20 with SMTP id t20mr305798aga.123.1291122401984; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 05:06:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.90.211.10 with HTTP; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 05:06:41 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20101130125545.GE1637@siouxsie> References: <4CF4B17C.7000703@planet.nl> <20101130125545.GE1637@siouxsie> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:06:41 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Threading and SharedMem (Re: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast?) From: Eray Ozkural To: oliver@first.in-berlin.de Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00163630f51521bfe7049644dce0 X-Spam: no; 0.00; threading:01 ocaml:01 eray:01 ozkural:01 in-berlin:01 eray:01 ozkural:01 bilkent:01 in-berlin:01 bilkent:01 wrote:01 wrote:01 oliver:01 oliver:01 caml-list:01 --00163630f51521bfe7049644dce0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 2:55 PM, wrote: > > > (A thread-specific GC for thread-specific variables would help here, > making global locks only necessary when accessing global used variables. > But I don't know if such a way would be possible without changing the > GC-stuff > itself.) > > Seconded, why is this not possible? That is to say, why cannot each thread maintain a separate GC, if so desired? Best, -- Eray Ozkural, PhD candidate. Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ai-philosophy http://myspace.com/arizanesil http://myspace.com/malfunct --00163630f51521bfe7049644dce0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 2:55 PM, <oliver@first.in-berlin= .de> wrote:

(A thread-specific GC for thread-specific variables would help here,
=A0making global locks only necessary when accessing global used variables.=
=A0But I don't know if such a way would be possible without changing th= e GC-stuff
=A0itself.)


Seconded, why is this n= ot possible? That is to say, why cannot each thread maintain a separate GC,= if so desired?

Best,
=A0
-- =
Eray Ozkural, PhD candidate.=A0 Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankar= a
http://groups.= yahoo.com/group/ai-philosophy
http://myspace.com/arizanesil http://myspace.com/malfunct

--00163630f51521bfe7049644dce0--