Author: Remi Meier <[email protected]>
Branch: extradoc
Changeset: r5233:9c837c7672df
Date: 2014-05-05 13:41 +0200
http://bitbucket.org/pypy/extradoc/changeset/9c837c7672df/
Log: more citations
diff --git a/talk/icooolps2014/position-paper.tex
b/talk/icooolps2014/position-paper.tex
--- a/talk/icooolps2014/position-paper.tex
+++ b/talk/icooolps2014/position-paper.tex
@@ -157,7 +157,7 @@
\hline
Existing applications & ++ & ++ & -{-} & ++ & ++ \\
\hline
- Better synchronisation & - & - & - & - & ++ \\
+ Better synchronisation & o & o & o & - & ++ \\
\hline
Implementation & ++ & - & ++ & ++ & ++ \\
\hline
@@ -210,12 +210,13 @@
it is not exposed to the application running on top of it. To
synchronise memory accesses in applications using threads, the
state-of-the-art still means explicit locking everywhere. It is well
-known that using locks for synchronisation is not easy\cfbolz{citation needed
-:-). would be cool if you could find something}. They are
-non-composable, have overhead, may deadlock, limit scalability, and
-overall add a lot of complexity\cfbolz{same here, really}. For a better
parallel programming
+known that using locks for synchronisation is not
+easy~\cite{christopher10,victor11,shan08}. They are non-composable,
+have overhead, may deadlock, limit scalability, and add to the overall
+complexity of the program logic. For a better parallel programming
model for dynamic languages, we propose another, well-known
-synchronisation mechanism called \emph{atomic blocks}\cfbolz{and here}.
+synchronisation mechanism called \emph{atomic
+ blocks}~\cite{tim03,tim05}.
Atomic blocks are composable, deadlock-free, higher-level and expose
useful atomicity and isolation guarantees to the application for a
@@ -522,6 +523,34 @@
correctly executes multiprocess programs." \emph{Computers, IEEE
Transactions} on 100.9 (1979): 690-691.
+\bibitem{victor11}
+ Victor Pankratius and Ali-Reza Adl-Tabatabai. 2011. A study of
+ transactional memory vs. locks in practice. In \emph{Proceedings of
+ the twenty-third annual ACM symposium on Parallelism in algorithms
+ and architectures} (SPAA '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA
+
+\bibitem{christopher10}
+ Christopher J. Rossbach, Owen S. Hofmann, and Emmett
+ Witchel. 2010. Is transactional programming actually
+ easier?. \emph{SIGPLAN} Not. 45, 5 (January 2010), 47-56.
+
+\bibitem{tim03}
+ Tim Harris and Keir Fraser. 2003. Language support for lightweight
+ transactions. \emph{In Proceedings of the 18th annual ACM SIGPLAN
+ conference on Object-oriented programing, systems, languages, and
+ applications} (OOPSLA '03).
+
+\bibitem{tim05}
+ Tim Harris, Simon Marlow, Simon Peyton-Jones, and Maurice
+ Herlihy. 2005. Composable memory transactions. \emph{In Proceedings
+ of the tenth ACM SIGPLAN symposium on Principles and practice of
+ parallel programming} (PPoPP '05).
+
+\bibitem{shan08}
+ Shan Lu, Soyeon Park, Eunsoo Seo, and Yuanyuan Zhou. 2008. Learning
+ from mistakes: a comprehensive study on real world concurrency bug
+ characteristics. \emph{SIGARCH Comput. Archit. News} 36, 1 (March 2008),
+ 329-339.
\end{thebibliography}
_______________________________________________
pypy-commit mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-commit
