On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Filip Pizlo <fpi...@apple.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 12, 2013, at 1:39 PM, Jarred Nicholls <jarred.nicho...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Filip Pizlo <fpi...@apple.com> wrote: > > > For as little worth as it is, I agree with you Filip that providing > low-level primitives would be best in terms of a foundation for many > parallel programming models. In terms of actually supporting shared > mutable memory and locks, it would be a challenge for the engines to become > thread-safe (internally) across contexts that share memory cells. I'd > envision the sharing of mutable memory being an opt-in semantic, marking a > piece of memory as being shared/mutable from multiple contexts. > > > Fixing the engines is a matter of typing. ;-) > > I don't think we need to add language features for opt-in, though this is > an intriguing idea. > > Without opt-in, the one biggish challenge would be DOM accesses from > threads other than the main thread; I suspect for those the initial > implementation would have to throw an exception from non-main-threads if > you try to access a DOM node. This is akin to what some UI toolkits do: > they let you have threads but prohibit access UI things from anything but > the thread on which the runloop sits. Of course, they don't do the > thread-check; we would have to do it to preserve integrity and security. > We already have Web workers for this kind of stuff, no? Is your proposal significantly different from what Web worker offers? This is just a thought but is it possible to infer semantics of what Web workers and use GPU or SIMD instructions instead of starting a new thread as appropriate? - R. Niwa
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
