Hi Christian:
________________________________
From: Christian Tismer <tis...@stackless.com>
To: Armin Rigo <ar...@tunes.org>
Cc: Andrew Francis <andrewfr_...@yahoo.com>; "stackl...@stackless.com"
<stackl...@stackless.com>; PyPy Developer Mailing List <pypy-dev@python.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 4, 2012 6:47 AM
Subject: Re: [pypy-dev] The Work Plan Re: STM proposal funding
...
>Anyway, the underlying ideas have similarities that make me think a lot.
>Thinking of Stackless, I was looking for a way to isolate tasklets in
>a way to let them run in parallel, as long as they are independent.
>In STM, independence is enforced, currently at a relatively high
>price.
>If Stackless were able to provide some better isolation by design,
>maybe there could be a hybrid approach, where most operations would
>not need to rely on STM all the time?
>Just rolling ideas out -- Chris
The idea I like the most is to use STM and lock-free algorithms for the
implementation of the
channels themselves. Again, the Scalable Join Patterns and Parallel ML papers
are the inspiration
for this approach. In contrast I have looked at Go's channel implementation and
it has to do stuff like sorting to get the correct locking order. What I like
is that the approach assumes that Stackless programmers know how to write
programmes that are fairly isolated.
One could experiment with this approach using the low-level rstm module or
prototypes written in C using
existing STM and lock-free libraries.
Cheers,
Andrew
_______________________________________________
pypy-dev mailing list
pypy-dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
