3 ms·

Memory Models: A Case for Rethinking Parallel Languages and Hardware

54 points by adg001 16y ago

jswinghammer 16y ago
I read a paper on the subject of transactional memory years ago that was presented at OOPSLA in 2007 (I think). It was pitching the idea that there is an analogy between transactional memory and garbage collection. It made the topic more understandable for me and might be helpful: http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/djg/papers/analogy_oopsla07.pdf http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/djg/papers/analogy_oopsla... I think this is an interesting explanation. The software product my company makes depends on a multi-threaded program which to date has had only one bug related to the fact it is a multi-threaded application. That bug was very serious mind you but it's the only one we've found (so far).
- liuliu 16y ago
  Transactional memory is easier to work with. But as long as you have strong consistency guarantee, I doubt any significant performance boost will come with that.
jfm3 16y ago
Fine grained concurrency will motivate the next big paradigm shift. I haven't seen anything better than actors or STM yet though.
scott_s 16y ago
Every paper written by Hans Boehm is worth reading: http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Hans_Boehm/pubs.html http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Hans_Boehm/pubs.html (If the paper you want to read is behind a pay-wall, google its title and you will likely find a freely available copy.)
stcredzero 16y ago
if the programmer writes disciplined (data-race-free) programs The idea seems to have merit, but such a phrase (staring with "if the programmer") also means that it will be diluted once it hits the programming mainstream. (Just a fact of life.)
- metageek 16y ago
  Yes, that's why they follow with: >We discuss why this view is the best we can do with current popular languages, and why it is inadequate moving forward. [...] In particular, we argue that parallel languages should not only promote high-level disciplined models, but they should also enforce the discipline.

54 points by adg001 16y ago

I read a paper on the subject of transactional memory years ago that was presented at OOPSLA in 2007 (I think). It was pitching the idea that there is an analogy between transactional memory and garbage collection. It made the topic more understandable for me and might be helpful: http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/djg/papers/analogy_oopsla07.pdf http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/djg/papers/analogy_oopsla... I think this is an interesting explanation. The software product my company makes depends on a multi-threaded program which to date has had only one bug related to the fact it is a multi-threaded application. That bug was very serious mind you but it's the only one we've found (so far).

liuliu 16y ago
Transactional memory is easier to work with. But as long as you have strong consistency guarantee, I doubt any significant performance boost will come with that.

jfm3 16y ago

Fine grained concurrency will motivate the next big paradigm shift. I haven't seen anything better than actors or STM yet though.

scott_s 16y ago

Every paper written by Hans Boehm is worth reading: http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Hans_Boehm/pubs.html http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Hans_Boehm/pubs.html (If the paper you want to read is behind a pay-wall, google its title and you will likely find a freely available copy.)

stcredzero 16y ago

if the programmer writes disciplined (data-race-free) programs The idea seems to have merit, but such a phrase (staring with "if the programmer") also means that it will be diluted once it hits the programming mainstream. (Just a fact of life.)

metageek 16y ago
Yes, that's why they follow with: >We discuss why this view is the best we can do with current popular languages, and why it is inadequate moving forward. [...] In particular, we argue that parallel languages should not only promote high-level disciplined models, but they should also enforce the discipline.