Good afternnon Clinton, Thanks for the addition historical reminiscences. The additional information in relation to the current differences in implementation is also valuable.
regards Bruce Rennie > Thanks Jafar for these very interesting comparisons. Robert would > know better than I, but it may well be that when he first told me of > his plans to do stackless co-expressions, I said something stupid > like: my monitoring facilities are built using the current > co-expression switch and Unicon will never adopt a different > co-expression switch unless the monitoring facilities are supported. > So he went off and invented Object Icon. Then again, I may be > misremembering and inventing that anecdote. 😊 In any case, if he has > 27% faster co-expressions that is a great technical accomplishment, > worthy of Robert's other great creations. UDB and other monitors > remain the world's biggest customer of co-expressions, so I > wish monitors ran on his 27% faster co-expressions. And I am not sure > I'd give up any normal execution speed for faster co-expressions, > since most programs do not use co-expressions. But I recognize that > these numbers are not authoritative. > > > Cheers, > > Clint > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Jafar Al-Gharaibeh <to.ja...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Saturday, April 30, 2016 11:12:28 AM > *To:* Bruce & Breeanna Rennie > *Cc:* Unicon > *Subject:* Re: [Unicon-group] Soft thread changes > My previous email decided to "fly" before I was done :) .... here is > the results: > > Objecticon: 9.7 seconds > Unicon: 12.3 seconds. > > > The context switch is 27% faster in Objecticon, I actually expected a > lot bigger difference. > To get a feel of the interpreter loop performance in both languages I > ran this program: > > procedure main() > > every 1 to 200000000 > > end > > Objecticon: 17.0 seconds > Unicon: 11.9 seconds. > > Unicon is 43% faster. These were quick tests, so number should not be > taken literally, I just wanted to get a quick reference point. > > > Cheers, > Jafar > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Jafar Al-Gharaibeh > <to.ja...@gmail.com <mailto:to.ja...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Here are some information about Objecticon co-expressions > including difference in semantics compared with Icon/Unicon: > http://objecticon.sourceforge.net/Coexpressions.html > > And here is another link with a brief discussion about the > implementation of co-expressions: > http://objecticon.sourceforge.net/ImplementationNotes.html > > > I'm not familiar with ObjectIcon implementation to say much about > it, but from the discussion in the above link, co-expressions > seems to be a lot cheaper in term of memory requirement (no > stack), and in context switch performance (no recursive call to > the interpreter). Co-expression stack in Unicon is configurable > so you can reduce the memory requirement if the application uses a > lot of "little" co-expressions, but still a stack is needed. > > On the performance front of context switch, while a recursive call > to the interpreter is needed, it only takes place once at the > first activation so it is not really a problem in this case. There > is however some state that needs to be saved/restored, both c > state and interpreter state. With native coswitch in Unicon that > we have in all common platforms now (recently added Mac OS and ARM > Linux) the cosiwtch is "fast". I decided to test how "slow" > Unicon's context switch compared to the stackless/non-recursive > implementation of co-expressions in Object Icon. I built both on > my Raspberry Pi (No graphics in both, and concurrency turned off > in the case of Unicon). Here is the program that I tested: > > procedure main() > > c := create 1. to 20000000 > > while @c > > end > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Bruce & Breeanna Rennie > <bren...@dcsi.net.au <mailto:bren...@dcsi.net.au>> wrote: > > Good morning Jay and Steve, > > It is a personal project to understand the difference between > Unicon and > ObjectIcon. My reasons are related to the co-expression > implementation > differences and the fact that ObjectIcon is a no recursive > interpreter > (unlike Unicon). My original reason for looking at both is > that I am > looking at a reimplementation of the icon runtime as a > indirect threaded > form. I have been puzzling about this for many years but, it > has only > been in recent times that I have the extra time to look at > these things. > > My investigations should, at this point, have no bearing on > what Jafar > is doing. As far as I can tell, I am the only one looking at the > implementation differences. As I am NOT a c programmer, I am > also having > to look at the implementation as a novice. I have always found > c as > being a hodge podge in terms of a language. But that is really > neither > here nor there. > > At this point, I can't give any real comment on either > implementation > with respect to threads, co-expressions and efficiency. > > regards > > Bruce Rennie > > On 30/04/16 02:37, Jay Hammond wrote: > > Robert Parlett developed Objecticon. > > > > https://rosettacode.org/wiki/Category:ObjectIcon > > > > and > > > > http://objecticon.sourceforge.net/ > > > > say a bit about it. > > > > From a long time ago maybe 8 years, I seem to remember there > being > > discussion in this group about a different co-expression > implementation > > in Objecticon being more efficient at threads, > co-expressions than the > > then Unicon one. > > > > There was of course also a downside to that approach. There > always are > > compromises. > > > > If it's no.t too much of a distraction, would Bruce and or > Jafar care > > to comment on where > > Unicon (and Objecticon) are now wrt threads, co-expressions, > efficiency? > > > > jay > > > > On 29/04/2016 17:04, Steve Graham wrote: > >> ObjectIcon? > >> > >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> *From:* Bruce & Breeanna Rennie <bren...@dcsi.net.au > <mailto:bren...@dcsi.net.au>> > >> *To:* Jafar Al-Gharaibeh <to.ja...@gmail.com > <mailto:to.ja...@gmail.com>> > >> *Cc:* Unicon group <unicon-group@lists.sourceforge.net > <mailto:unicon-group@lists.sourceforge.net>> > >> *Sent:* Thursday, April 28, 2016 8:35 PM > >> *Subject:* Re: [Unicon-group] Soft thread changes > >> > >> Good afternoon Jafar, > >> > >> As I am able I'll have a look and see if I can add anything > of worth for > >> the implementation. The idea sounds good. At the moment I > am still > >> trying to wrap my head around the differences between > Unicon and > >> ObjectIcon implementation details. > >> > >> regards > >> > >> Bruce Rennie > >> > >> On 29/04/16 12:21, Jafar Al-Gharaibeh wrote: > >> > Good Morning Bruce, > >> > > >> > Soft-threads ( software threads or maybe vs hard-threads) > are a hybrid > >> > between native co-expressions and threads made possible > by my recent > >> > changes to allow native coswitch() to coexist with > concurrent threads. > >> > They are similar to native co-expressions in that they > are completely > >> > a Unicon thing (no OS context, i.e can't be scheduled by > the OS), but > >> > they are similar to threads in that they are concurrent. > Since a soft > >> > thread doesn't have a pthread (OS context) it needs to be > scheduled > >> > "manually". Unlike co-expressions which get scheduled via > an explicit > >> > activation, soft threads are managed implicitly by the > language's > >> > runtime. That means we need a scheduler that takes care > of this new > >> > task with all of the problems that comes with it. :) > >> > > >> > The goal is allow us to create a lot of "cheap" > concurrent threads > >> > even without creating pthreads, or get by with a few > pthreads through > >> > thread pooling, etc. The idea is to decouple Unicon's > threads from the > >> > the OS threads. > >> > > >> > What I have committed so far under "SoftThread" ifdefs is > very very > >> > basic experimental implementation that I did in under > two hours. I > >> > got some basic scheduling to work and was able to run a > small demo. We > >> > have a long a long way to go. If anyone is interested in > this or > >> > helping with implementation I'd be very happy to share > more details > >> > with them. > >> > > >> > Cheers, > >> > Jafar > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Bruce & Breeanna Rennie > >> > <bren...@dcsi.net.au <mailto:bren...@dcsi.net.au> > <mailto:bren...@dcsi.net.au <mailto:bren...@dcsi.net.au>> > >> <mailto:bren...@dcsi.net.au <mailto:bren...@dcsi.net.au> > <mailto:bren...@dcsi.net.au <mailto:bren...@dcsi.net.au>>>> wrote: > >> > > >> > Good morning Jafar, > >> > > >> > Can you clue us into what the soft-thread changes are > for, please? > >> > > >> > regards > >> > > >> > Bruce Rennie > >> > > >> > >> Unicon-group mailing list > >> Unicon-group@lists.sourceforge.net > <mailto:Unicon-group@lists.sourceforge.net> > >> <mailto:Unicon-group@lists.sourceforge.net > <mailto:Unicon-group@lists.sourceforge.net>> > >>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/unicon-group > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Find and fix application performance issues faster with > Applications Manager > > Applications Manager provides deep performance insights into > multiple tiers of > > your business applications. It resolves application problems > quickly and > > reduces your MTTR. Get your free trial! > > https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/302982198;130105516;z > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Unicon-group mailing list > > Unicon-group@lists.sourceforge.net > <mailto:Unicon-group@lists.sourceforge.net> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/unicon-group > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Find and fix application performance issues faster with > Applications Manager > Applications Manager provides deep performance insights into > multiple tiers of > your business applications. It resolves application problems > quickly and > reduces your MTTR. Get your free trial! > https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/302982198;130105516;z > _______________________________________________ > Unicon-group mailing list > Unicon-group@lists.sourceforge.net > <mailto:Unicon-group@lists.sourceforge.net> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/unicon-group > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Find and fix application performance issues faster with Applications Manager Applications Manager provides deep performance insights into multiple tiers of your business applications. It resolves application problems quickly and reduces your MTTR. Get your free trial! https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/302982198;130105516;z _______________________________________________ Unicon-group mailing list Unicon-group@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/unicon-group
