From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id UAA05818; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 20:23:41 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA05668 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 20:23:39 +0100 (MET) Received: from EXCHVS2.cs.cornell.edu (exchclu-node2.cs.cornell.edu [128.84.97.24]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id gAQJNc124072; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 20:23:38 +0100 (MET) content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Subject: RE: [Caml-list] Why systhreads? Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 14:23:34 -0500 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Caml-list] Why systhreads? Thread-Index: AcKVK3y0YQ7jq/TKT5SdJk52mLbVCwAVYZfA From: "Gregory Morrisett" To: "Xavier Leroy" , "Blair Zajac" Cc: Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk >Factors of 10 are always nice :-) Just kidding. What I meant is the >following: assume making the Caml runtime system thread-safe=20 >entails a 25% slowdown on program execution. (This can easily=20 >happen if e.g. we have to lock a mutex at each heap=20 >allocation.) =20 I would assume that allocation (in the nursery) is done via a pointer bump, and that it would be easy enough to have separate nurseries for threads. Then the only=20 synchronization that's needed is for GC. At least, that's how we did it with SML/NJ. -Greg ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners