At 1:27 AM -0500 1/30/04, Gordon Henriksen wrote:
On Thursday, January 29, 2004, at 11:55 , Melvin Smith wrote:
At 11:45 PM 1/28/2004 -0500, Gordon Henriksen wrote:
On Wednesday, January 28, 2004, at 12:53 , Melvin Smith wrote:
At 12:27 PM 1/23/2004 -0800, Damien Neil wrote:
Java Collections ar
On Thursday, January 29, 2004, at 11:55 , Melvin Smith wrote:
At 11:45 PM 1/28/2004 -0500, Gordon Henriksen wrote:
On Wednesday, January 28, 2004, at 12:53 , Melvin Smith wrote:
At 12:27 PM 1/23/2004 -0800, Damien Neil wrote:
Java Collections are a standard Java library of common data
structur
Melvin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I thought we were discussing correct behavior of a shared data structure,
> not general cases. Or maybe this is the general case and I should
> go read more backlog? :)
Basically we have three kinds of locking:
- HLL user level locking [1]
- user level lo
At 11:45 PM 1/28/2004 -0500, Gordon Henriksen wrote:
On Wednesday, January 28, 2004, at 12:53 , Melvin Smith wrote:
At 12:27 PM 1/23/2004 -0800, Damien Neil wrote:
Java Collections are a standard Java library of common data structures
such as arrays and hashes. Collections are not synchronized;
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 12:53:09PM -0500, Melvin Smith wrote:
> At 12:27 PM 1/23/2004 -0800, Damien Neil wrote:
> >Java Collections are a standard Java library of common data structures
> >such as arrays and hashes. Collections are not synchronized; access
> >involves no locks at all. Multiple th
On Wednesday, January 28, 2004, at 12:53 , Melvin Smith wrote:
At 12:27 PM 1/23/2004 -0800, Damien Neil wrote:
Java Collections are a standard Java library of common data structures
such as arrays and hashes. Collections are not synchronized; access
involves no locks at all. Multiple threads
Pardon me, I am trudging through all this thread backlog and
have been trying not to post to add to the bandwidth.
At 12:27 PM 1/23/2004 -0800, Damien Neil wrote:
An existence proof:
Java Collections are a standard Java library of common data structures
such as arrays and hashes. Collections are
Deven T. Corzine wrote:
> The most novel approach I've seen is the one taken by Project UDI
> (Uniform Driver Interface).
This is very much the "ithreads" model which has been discussed. The
problem is that, from a functional perspective, it's not so much
threading as it is forking.
--
Gordon
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 10:24:30 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) wrote:
> If you're accessing shared data, it has
> to be locked. There's no getting around that. The only way to reduce
> locking overhead is to reduce the amount of data that needs locking.
>
One slight modification I would m
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 10:07:25AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> A single global lock, like python and ruby use, kill any hope of
> SMP-ability.
Assume, for the sake of argument, that locking almost every PMC
every time a thread touches it causes Parrot to run four times
slower. Assume also that
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 5:24 PM -0500 1/22/04, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
Damian's issues were addressed before he brought them up, though not
in one spot.
A single global lock, like python and ruby use, kill any hope of
SMP-ability.
Hand-rolled threading has unpleasant complexity issues, is a bi
At 5:58 PM -0500 1/22/04, Josh Wilmes wrote:
I'm also concerned by those timings that leo posted.
0.0001 vs 0.0005 ms on a set- that magnitude of locking overhead
seems pretty crazy to me.
It looks about right. Don't forget, part of what you're seeing isn't
that locking mutexes is slow, it's that
At 5:24 PM -0500 1/22/04, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Last chance to get in comments on the first half of the proposal.
If it looks adequate, I'll put together the technical details
(functions, protocols, structures, and whatnot) and send that off
for abuse^Wdiscussion. After th
I'm also concerned by those timings that leo posted.
0.0001 vs 0.0005 ms on a set- that magnitude of locking overhead
seems pretty crazy to me.
It seemed like a few people have said that the JVM style of locking
can reduce this, so it seems to me that it merits some serious
consideration, even
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Last chance to get in comments on the first half of the proposal. If
it looks adequate, I'll put together the technical details (functions,
protocols, structures, and whatnot) and send that off for
abuse^Wdiscussion. After that we'll finalize it, PDD the thing, and
get the
15 matches
Mail list logo
