In message <044ru0pgeretshra4g6cniq90bgiolgeas at 4ax.com>
          Jon Hylands <jon at huv.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:32:11 -0800, Michael Latta <lattam at mac.com> wrote:
> 
> > Does the current image format associate active threads with processors? 
> 
> Generally, that is handled by the OS. If you're running a different thread
> on a multi-cpu machine, the OS decides which CPU to run it on...
You're all thinking much to small - or maybe too big, depending. I
think for _massive_ parallelism we want to be able to schedule each
method invocation to any available compute resource. Prims would
potentially be parallelisable as well in some cases.
Forget all this crap about "one cpu for garbage collection and another
for running the interpreter" - I'm talking 100, a 1000 a million cpus.
The current sort of VM would be utterly pointless in such a world.
Quite possibly the current sort of Smalltalk would be useless.


tim
--
Tim Rowledge, tim at sumeru.stanford.edu, http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim
Useful random insult:- All booster, no payload.