[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: concurrency research "hot" again?
"If OS size is in kilobytes.. " You are kidding, aren't you?... Or,
maybe.... you are a PROFESSOR? This would explain everything...
A.L.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-occam-com@xxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-occam-com@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of tjoccam@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 1:55 PM
> To: Andrew Delin
> Cc: Allan McInnes; occam list
> Subject: RE: concurrency research "hot" again?
>
>
>
> Maybe I'm sawing the same old violin, but...
>
> I think the key to breaking out of the "incredibly difficult
> to program in parallel" conundrum is to dump the baggage of
> the last couple of decades and go back, not only to CSP, but
> also to elegant (small) OS constructs. If OS size is in
> kilobytes, there's hope you can understand COMPLETELY what it
> is doing, especially if the OS restricts itself to resource
> loading and leaves run-time concurrency to applications.
>
> The other thing is to accept a 5 or 10 percent performance
> hit in order to keep clear, provable, traceable resource
> usage (i.e. eliminate spaghetti). The "hit" is actually not a
> hit, because the cost of code tangles is really much more;
> but if raw specs are applied, you can always do it just a
> little faster by letting pointers and dynamic constructs go wild.
>
> Larry Dickson
>
> > Last week I attended a presentation by BillG where he also
> raised the
> > topic of insufficient semantic richness in today's
> programming models
> > - saying new developments are needed in programming
> languages to use
> > the parallelism of multi-core CPU designs. In the same
> conference, the
> > head of MS Research also talked about these challenges.
> >
> > About 6 months ago I sat through a presentation about options for
> > parallelism in .NET today, and it wasn't pretty - way too
> much locking
> > litter and thread invocation for my liking. Having to
> understand the
> > behaviour of the compiler so that your process control statements
> > don't get optimised away, isn't goodness.
> >
> > There is a proposed MS approach which seems to be a form of 'CPU
> > transaction', where entire blocks of statements effectively compete
> > for resources and the OS or hardware detects a livelock or
> deadlock or
> > other problematic condition. At this point, blocks of process state
> > are reversed by hardware. I need to find out more about this. These
> > techniques will probably need to exist if you want to build
> a robust
> > OS on top of multicore, where applications with different "parallel
> > heritage" must run together. Nonetheless, the best approach for app
> > construction is to start along CSP lines, not to rely on
> the system to
> > reverse out of trouble...
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-occam-com@xxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-occam-com@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > On Behalf Of Allan McInnes
> > Sent: Wednesday, 14 February 2007 1:25 PM
> > To: occam list
> > Subject: concurrency research "hot" again?
> >
> > It seems that concurrency is again getting "mainstream" attention.
> > I've seen several articles in the popular press over the
> last few days
> > touting Intel's
> > new 80-core "teraflop-on-a-chip" demonstration chip. Most
> of the articles
> > I've
> > seen have made a big deal out of how difficult programmers
> will find it to
> > program for 80 cores, and how lots of research needs to be
> done to develop
> > new
> > techniques for programming parallel architectures (here's
> one sample of
> > the
> > articles I've seen:
> >
> http://www.crn.com/sections/breakingnews/dailyarchives.jhtml?a
> rticleId=197005746).
> >
> > At the same time, I've seen several links to "The Landscape of
> > Parallel Computing Research: A View from Berkeley"
> >
> (http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2006/EECS-2006-183.html)
> > show up on various websites that I check regularly. In that report,
> > the folks from Berkeley
> > say, among other things:
> >
> > "Since real world applications are naturally parallel and
> hardware is
> > naturally parallel, what we need is a programming model, system
> > software, and a supporting architecture that are naturally
> parallel.
> > Researchers have the rare
> > opportunity to re-invent these cornerstones of computing,
> provided they
> > simplify the efficient programming of highly parallel systems."
> >
> > So is research into concurrent programming becoming a hot
> topic again?
> > And how many of these research efforts are simply going to reinvent
> > the occam wheel?
> > The Berkeley effort, in particular, sounds a lot like the
> occam/transputer
> > approach (at least at a high level). However, the tech
> report in question
> > makes
> > no mention of CSP, occam, or transputers (OTOH, they also
> omit any mention
> > of
> > Berkeley's Prof. Ed Lee, who has done a lot of work on concurrent
> > programming
> > models via the Ptolemy project).
> >
> > It'll be interesting to see where this goes. Hopefully
> it'll lead to
> > an upswing in funding for projects that can claim to be working
> > towards support for massive concurrency - like KRoC/nocc :-)
> >
> > Allan
> > --
> > Allan McInnes <amcinnes@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > PhD Candidate
> > Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering
> > Utah State University
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>