Hi Bert,
Am 09.04.2008 um 16:36 schrieb Bert Freudenberg:
Am 09.04.2008 um 02:32 schrieb Gavin Romig-Koch:
http://people.redhat.com/drepper/cpumemory.pdf
that looks like a very interesting reference, thanks a lot.
Indeed.
plus a little follow-up from John Rose's blog:
http://blogs.sun.com/jrose/entry/serious_and_funny_about_side
I presume that if inline caching was really that much of a bugger,
it would not be used at the degree it is in (probably amongst many
others) the VisualWorks Smalltalk VM, which was implemented and is
maintained by very smart people.
This does not imply that if the VW OE was designed from scratch,
taken current CPU trade-offs into account, it wouldn't result in
something rather different. Also, it runs on a lot of CPUs so I am
not sure to what extent platform-specific optimizations are employed.
It would be interesting to know.
Perhaps one can only find out by taking a (simple?) VM, implementing
all (or some of) the different caching and threading schemes, and do
some thorough HPM measurements. If only HPM measurements were
conveniently possible without those darn kernel patches... :-/
Best,
Michael
--
Dr.-Ing. Michael Haupt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Software Architecture Group Phone: ++49 (0) 331-5509-542
Hasso Plattner Institute for Fax: ++49 (0) 331-5509-229
Software Systems Engineering http://www.swa.hpi.uni-potsdam.de/
Prof.-Dr.-Helmert-Str. 2-3, D-14482 Potsdam, Germany
Hasso-Plattner-Institut für Softwaresystemtechnik GmbH, Potsdam
Amtsgericht Potsdam, HRB 12184
Geschäftsführung: Prof. Dr. Christoph Meinel
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
[email protected]
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
