[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] Symmetric MultiProcessing
|
From: |
Taylor R Campbell |
|
Subject: |
Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] Symmetric MultiProcessing |
|
Date: |
Tue, 3 Mar 2015 20:52:09 +0000 |
|
User-agent: |
IMAIL/1.21; Edwin/3.116; MIT-Scheme/9.1.99 |
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 20:50:54 +0000
From: Taylor R Campbell <address@hidden>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 13:14:47 -0700
From: Friar Puck <address@hidden>
I considered that, but the abstraction seemed generally useful (and
widely neglected), Scheme mutexes are cheap to create, and more are
better, contention-wise. At this point, serial-populations are
implemented and tested.
Hmm? I don't understand. Why create two separate abstractions? Just
protect all protections by a mutex by default, inside the population
^^^^^^^^^^^
abstraction.
I meant: `Just protect all _populations_ by a mutex by default, inside
the population abstraction.'