What about the standard library being single-threaded? How hard will it be
to adjust it for multiple threads, will OCaml maintainers even agree to such
adjustments and how will this affect performance?
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 10:03 PM, Jon Harrop
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 22 September
On 21 sept. 08, at 23:41, Jon Harrop wrote:
The good news is that the parallel GC is coming along nicely and
this will be
a solved problem before long... :-)
I'd love to hear more about this. Could you develop?
Alan
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 20:03 +0100, Jon Harrop wrote:
Sure thing. I wrote to the guys doing this work a couple of times and they
were very friendly. Apparently they are currently ironing out the last of the
bugs before going public.
I don't think I am the only person struggling to contain
Richard Jones wrote:
If you also follow the rest of that thread, there's a message passing
OCaml version by Gerd Stolpmann which also scales properly.
To be honest, matrix multiplication interests me not at all since no
one is hand coding their own matrix multiplication when there are
perfectly
On Sunday 21 September 2008 20:05:15 Michaël Grünewald wrote:
This is true while your are concerned with matrix over the real or
complex numbers, but if you want to use arbitrary precision arithmetic,
finite fields, quaternions or any ring you like, then you are stuck.
Linear algebra is useful
If you also follow the rest of that thread, there's a message passing
OCaml version by Gerd Stolpmann which also scales properly.
To be honest, matrix multiplication interests me not at all since no
one is hand coding their own matrix multiplication when there are
perfectly good, parallel
It is a stop-gap solution...
That is not true. Many-core machines will always be decomposed into
shared-memory clusters of as many cores as possible because shared memory
parallelism will always be orders of magnitude more efficient than
distributed parallelism.
The way shared memory on
On Monday 14 July 2008 12:32:53 J C wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 4:35 AM, Jon Harrop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OCaml already has OS native threads (albeit with a global lock), already
supports OpenMP and can already be used to write parallel programs that
exploit multiple cores.
...
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 8:08 AM, Jon Harrop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps the parallel GC could enable support for things like OpenMP but I
personally would rather see a shift to similar functionality to that of
Microsoft's TPL because (I assume) it is better for parallel tree
operations
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 01:08:23PM +0100, Jon Harrop wrote:
I believe you are correct. Moreover, I suspect that adding support for OpenMP
to OCaml would be difficult because the current OCaml implementation is
thread unsafe.
OpenMP isn't your typical library. It's a set of wierd
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Oliver Bandel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For example, if you have a non-profit research project,
you can use the BOINC infrastructure, which provides
about 58 PCs to help you :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Open_Infrastructure_for_Network_Computing
Am Donnerstag, den 10.07.2008, 23:01 -0400 schrieb Brian Hurt:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Gerd Stolpmann wrote:
I wouldn't take this article too seriously. It's just speculation.
I would take the article seriously.
Just open up your mind to this perspective: It's a big risk for the CPU
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 10 July 2008 10:00:02 am Jon Harrop wrote:
Today's biggest shared-memory supercomputers already have thousands of
cores.
Also, this is a CNET article.. not exactly known for being in depth or
well researched and this article is no
On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 16:06 +0200, Xavier Leroy wrote:
. . .
The interesting question that this community should focus on
(rather than throwing fits about concurrent GC and the like) is coming
up with good programming models for parallelism. I'm quite fond of
message passing myself, but
On Friday 11 July 2008 15:03:48 Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
As a case in point, I suggest an experiment (which unfortunately I don't
have the time or motivation to realize). Replace the current Ocaml GC
either in bytecode or in nativecode ocaml by Boehm's collector (which is
multithread
[...] There are good reasons to think that the
illusion of shared memory cannot be maintained in the presence of
hundreds of computing elements, even using cc-NUMA techniques
(i.e. hardware emulation of shared memory on top of high-speed
point-to-point links).
I'm not arguing any of your points
Zitat von Peng Zang [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 10 July 2008 11:01:31 pm Brian Hurt wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Gerd Stolpmann wrote:
I wouldn't take this article too seriously. It's just
speculation.
I would take the article
J C wrote:
As much as I hate to look a gift horse in the mouth, and I think Caml
has been a great and grossly underappreciated product,
Agreed.
I need to see
if writing Caml is a viable code investment for the coming years or
something like Haskell,
I think Haskell's STM is way overhyped
Zitat von Jon Harrop [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thursday 10 July 2008 23:25:36 you wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 03:00:02PM +0100, Jon Harrop wrote:
OCaml is already ~8x slower than F# on today's eight core
desktops.
You don't half talk a load of nonsense. MPI OCaml programs on 8
cores
Hello Jon,
Zitat von Oliver Bandel [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[...]
And a question to the message passing: which message passing
technique
from Ocaml did you use?
[...]
Oh, sorry, I read your mail again and saw that you talked about
Richards OCaml implementation.
I googled for some keyords and
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Gerd Stolpmann wrote:
I wouldn't take this article too seriously. It's just speculation.
I would take the article seriously.
Just open up your mind to this perspective: It's a big risk for the CPU
vendors to haven taken the direction to multi-core.
*Precisely*. It
I know that Caml team wanted to see if many-core shared-memory systems
were going to stick around before bothering with Caml development that
takes advantage of them.
Well, it looks like they are here to stay, after all:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-9981760-64.html
As much as I hate to
22 matches
Mail list logo
