2011/4/29 Stefan Marr <[email protected]>: > > On 28 Apr 2011, at 23:56, Nicolas Cellier wrote: > >> One silly idea while reading this thread (not the paper): >> For single core, the idea makes sense. >> It may even extend easily to multicore VM (just forget about Smalltalk >> for a while) by counting message sent per core and taking the max. > So, why forget about Smalltalk in this context? > If you don't like the performance of the RoarVM, just integrate the ideas > into Cog :-P >
Sure, maybe the ;) were de rigueur. However, as I understand it, it's entirely up to user to write code exploiting parallel Process explicitly right ? Nicolas > *scnr* > > Bye the way, I just remember two interesting talks at OOPSLA'09, that are > related: > http://www.oopsla.org/oopsla2009/program/research-program/110-reliability-and-monitoring > >>> How Java VM Can Get More from a Hardware Performance Monitor >>> Inferred Call Path Profiling > > Stefan > > > -- > Stefan Marr > Software Languages Lab > Vrije Universiteit Brussel > Pleinlaan 2 / B-1050 Brussels / Belgium > http://soft.vub.ac.be/~smarr > Phone: +32 2 629 2974 > Fax: +32 2 629 3525 > > >
