[squeak-dev] Re: The "correct" approach to multi-core systems.
Igor Stasenko
siguctua at gmail.com
Sun Mar 2 21:19:49 UTC 2008
On 02/03/2008, Jason Johnson <jason.johnson.081 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com> wrote:
> > In short: Less sharing - less contention. More sharing - more contention.
> >
> > If you put 2 points on a line and call them 'no sharing' and 'share
> > everything', then
> > any system which allows you run on multiple cores and operate over
> > single domain (be it single memory or multiple standalone memories) is
> > lies somewhere in the middle.
> >
> > You can pick a starting point from where you moving to that golden
> > point - from 'share everything' or from 'share nothing'. But it's no
> > doubt, no matter from where you started, you will always move towards
> > 'golden' middle point.
>
>
> But the question is, where do you make your trade offs. If you take
> the simple way *for you* then just give access to threading to
> everyone and let them suffer with the pain of a paradigm too complex
> to be done correctly.
>
> If you take the way that's simply for *everyone else* then you put
> this sharing inside the VM in the places it makes since and hide it
> from the language level (e.g. how at least Erlang does it)
>
>
I'd vote for *everyone* - put threading control at language side, as
everything else in smalltalk. Any 'magic' should be a code which i can
read and change, placed in image, not in VM.
No-magic is the spirit of smalltalk, after all.
--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|