|
Re: OS scheduling vs. VM scheduling: msg#00254lang.erlang.general
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 14:49:01 +0100, Joachim Durchholz <joachim.durchholz@xxxxxx> wrote: Hi all, Yes, I remember that too. Note that they're talking about threads, i.e. just creating a context in shared memory. Erlang "threads" do not share memory (conceptually, even if they do in reality). This is something to think about if one wants to share the memory space with other languages -- Erlang processes _behave_ as if their memory is protected and separate from others. Another implication is that the VM has to be made thread-safe. It is not so today. The upside is that it would become possible to take advantage of multipro architectures in a wholly different way than today. The issues are well covered in the following document: http://www.erlang.se/publications/xjobb/0089-hedqvist.pdf ("A Parallel and Multi-threaded Erlang Implementation" by Pekka Hedqvist) The details that appear to have changed since then are the number of threads that can be created and the cost of creating them (but basically only on Linux.) /Uffe -- Ulf Wiger, Senior System Architect EAB/UPD/S |
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| Previous by Date: | Re: ANNOUNCE ex11 release two: 00254, Joe Armstrong |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | high priority signal for scheduling latency: 00254, todd |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: OS scheduling vs. VM schedulingi: 00254, Vlad Dumitrescu |
| Next by Thread: | Re: OS scheduling vs. VM scheduling: 00254, todd |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
| News | FAQ | advertise |