[Pharo-dev] [Vm-dev] Re: Random forest in Pharo
estebanlm at gmail.com
Mon Oct 19 09:10:03 UTC 2015
just to be clear.
When we talk about MTVM, we talk about a MT-FFI, *not* a MTVM in general.
In general, a “common” approach to MT cannot be applied in Pharo (or Smalltalk in general) and to get a VM *and* an image working properly is an effort that makes what I called massive some mails above like a small stone compared to a mountain.
- What is in plans is MT-FFI, and that will be available eventually.
- There is an approach I want to re-work, that would allow us profit of multicores without going multithread: the “hydra” experiment made some years ago by Igor creates a good basis to this. But is also a lot of of work (but a lot less than a complete MT), and not a real priority for now… I hope to resume work on that area some day… just not anytime soon.
> On 18 Oct 2015, at 17:56, Ben Coman <btc at openInWorld.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 2:25 AM, Robert Withers
> <robert.w.withers at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yes, exactly. I do realize I was consciously changing that effort
>> synchronization order.
> I see 64-bit being higher priority than multi-threaded for the wider
> community. Dealing with larger in-Image data opens the door to more
> corporate project/funding opportunities. Also simplifying the install
> on modern Linux platforms without requiring additional 386 libraries
> will help acceptance there.
>> It is my humble opinion, without really knowing, that 64-bit would have to be redone after the MTVM completes.
> I would assume it was the other way around. Presuming that Eliot has
> sponsors influencing his priorities, it seems given that 64-bits will
> happen first. I would guess any MTVM development on the old vm would
> then need to be reworked.
>> I was doing so with the idea in mind that I and others
>> might dig into working on the VM, for threading support, while Eliot
>> maintains focus on 64-bits...a tall order, I know.
> The usual downside of splitting resources applies. There are not that
> many "others" and maybe they would be drawn away from helping with the
> 64-bit vm. If the 64-bit vm goes slower for lack of resources then
> your footing for MTVM will shifting for a longer time. You may
> ultimately get where you want to go faster by helping with the 64-bit
> vm. The rapport built with other vm devs from working on 64-bit might
> could then be applied to MTVM. (Of course, its your free time, so you
> should pursue what interests you.)
>> I was barely familiar with the VM, slang, interpreter, it years ago...
>> I'm totally unfamiliar with cog.
> The experience you gain from working beside Esteban and Eliot on
> 64-bit Cog/Spur could then be applied to a MTVM.
> btw, you may find these threads interesting...
> * http://lists.pharo.org/pipermail/pharo-dev_lists.pharo.org/2015-April/108648.html
> * http://forum.world.st/Copy-on-write-for-a-multithreaded-VM-td4837905.html
> cheers -ben
>> I believe another item on that list ought to be modernizing slang. So
>> many big items!
>> On 10/16/2015 12:48 PM, Stephan Eggermont wrote:
>>> On 16-10-15 14:05, Robert Withers wrote:
>>>> Because of that assumption I've made and without the responsibilities
>>>> you have, Esteban, but recognizing modernizing NB to FFI, my desired
>>>> list is:
>>> I would expect the least total effort to be needed by keeping the work
>>> of Esteban and Eliot as much as possible aligned. That is what Esteban's
>>> list achieves.
More information about the Vm-dev