Re: [Haskell] Pugs gains SMP parallelism support.

2006-10-23 Thread Bulat Ziganshin
Hello Audrey, Saturday, October 21, 2006, 12:14:49 PM, you wrote: > I hacked +RTS -N support into Pugs today; here's a short writeup: > http://pugs.blogs.com/pugs/2006/10/smp_paralleliza.html > Pugs's current implementation for concurrent operations on lists is > very naive: yes, it's na

Re: [Haskell] Pugs gains SMP parallelism support.

2006-10-23 Thread Taral
On 10/23/06, Sebastian Sylvan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: They probably are. However you get the overhead of creating the array (when you don't really need O(1) random access) and every thread signals the same semaphore which may lead to some congestion which could slow things down. You do need

Re: [Haskell] Pugs gains SMP parallelism support.

2006-10-23 Thread Sebastian Sylvan
On 10/23/06, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 10/23/06, Sebastian Sylvan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > They probably are. However you get the overhead of creating the array > (when you don't really need O(1) random access) and every thread > signals the same semaphore which may lead to some con

[Haskell] Re: Pugs gains SMP parallelism support.

2006-10-23 Thread Simon Marlow
Audrey Tang wrote: I hacked +RTS -N support into Pugs today; here's a short writeup: http://pugs.blogs.com/pugs/2006/10/smp_paralleliza.html Pugs's current implementation for concurrent operations on lists is very naive: chan<- newChan forM ([0..] `zip` xs) $

Re: [Haskell] Pugs gains SMP parallelism support.

2006-10-23 Thread Taral
On 10/23/06, Sebastian Sylvan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm not so sure that a newArray is faster than N copies of newEmptyMVar, at any rate the [MVar] approach has *no* congestion points They are congestion points because each thread could conceivably attempt to putMVar at the same time as th

Re: [Haskell] Pugs gains SMP parallelism support.

2006-10-23 Thread Sebastian Sylvan
On 10/23/06, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 10/23/06, Sebastian Sylvan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not so sure that a newArray is faster than N copies of > newEmptyMVar, at any rate the [MVar] approach has *no* congestion > points They are congestion points because each thread could co

Re: [Haskell] Re: Haskell Weekly News: September 27, 2006

2006-10-23 Thread Deborah Goldsmith
On Oct 20, 2006, at 5:04 PM, Andy Adams-Moran wrote: Just an update: I just added slides from Howard Mansell (Credit Suisse) and Rishiyur Nikhil (BlueSpec). That URL again is: http://www.galois.com/cufp The BlueSpec link is broken. Thanks, Deborah

Re: [Haskell] Re: Haskell Weekly News: September 27, 2006

2006-10-23 Thread Andy Adams-Moran
Andy Adams-Moran wrote: > Just an update: I just added slides from Howard Mansell (Credit Suisse) > and Rishiyur Nikhil (BlueSpec). Thanks to everyone who pointed out that there was a typo on the page; Nikhil's slides should be downloadable now at http://www.galois.com/cufp/ Cheers, Andy

[Haskell] Haskell Weekly News: October 24, 2006

2006-10-23 Thread Donald Bruce Stewart
--- Haskell Weekly News http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/HWN Issue 46 - October 24, 2006 --- Welcome to issue 46 of HWN, a weekly newsletter covering dev