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 nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2766BB9A for ; Sun, 30 Oct 2005 02:41:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from wproxy.gmail.com (wproxy.gmail.com [64.233.184.201]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j9U0fHR7010981 for ; Sun, 30 Oct 2005 02:41:18 +0200 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i7so350469wra for ; Sat, 29 Oct 2005 17:41:17 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=RZ/LGHbh871bSjpPfrHyQJXENaEVZ4sjPNZDhky0UqS2Rkqm//fxEXQCYs3cLh8y0aUDiBLu2aQXva9+kys62fYFW8va7i2OKtXdNAq/mF9Z2Ojm/wQpEtIhbR8+sIexVlTE08cqvzj9qfC4ZCh/+sFJGkeS/7/1fygeNqrRoE4= Received: by 10.64.233.6 with SMTP id f6mr480671qbh; Sat, 29 Oct 2005 17:41:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.65.23.20 with HTTP; Sat, 29 Oct 2005 17:41:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 13:41:17 +1300 From: Jonathan Roewen To: skaller Subject: Re: [Caml-list] The Bytecode Interpreter... Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr In-Reply-To: <1130599340.7560.107.camel@rosella> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <5636A978-D095-489D-A20D-8E762F133240@inria.fr> <1130585342.15589.124.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1130599340.7560.107.camel@rosella> X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 436416AD.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 bytecode:01 runtime:01 ...:98 interrupts:98 imho:01 kernel:01 kernel:01 data:02 concurrency:02 programming:03 long:04 long:04 problem:05 distributed:05 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_BY_IP autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 > Your main problem, IMHO, will be concurrency, not interrupts. > That is -- multiprocessor support. Because typical > multiprocessor OS shares a lot more data between CPUs, > and runs at least part of the kernel on ALL the CPUs. Possibly. I think we'll tackle this by a separate kernel instance/runtime per processor, and act like they're separate machines .. akin to distributed programming. But multiprocessor stuff is a long, long way off.