search for: herlihi

Displaying 7 results from an estimated 7 matches for "herlihi".

Did you mean: herlihy
2007 Jul 09
2
[LLVMdev] Proposal for atomic and synchronization instructions
Torvald Riegel wrote: > On Monday 09 July 2007 19:33, Scott Michel wrote: >> Torvald Riegel wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'd like to see support for something like this. I have some comments, >>> and I think there is existing work that you can reuse. >> "reuse within the compiler." > > within the LLVM compiler framework, to be
2007 Jul 09
5
[LLVMdev] Proposal for atomic and synchronization instructions
Torvald Riegel wrote: > Hi, > > I'd like to see support for something like this. I have some comments, and I > think there is existing work that you can reuse. "reuse within the compiler." > "While the processor may spin and attempt the atomic operation more than once > before it is successful, research indicates this is extremely uncommon." > I
2007 Jul 09
0
[LLVMdev] Proposal for atomic and synchronization instructions
On Monday 09 July 2007 19:33, Scott Michel wrote: > Torvald Riegel wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I'd like to see support for something like this. I have some comments, > > and I think there is existing work that you can reuse. > > "reuse within the compiler." within the LLVM compiler framework, to be precise. > > > "While the processor may
2007 Jul 09
0
[LLVMdev] Proposal for atomic and synchronization instructions
Hi, I'd like to see support for something like this. I have some comments, and I think there is existing work that you can reuse. TAS and CAS are _not_ theoretically equivalent. TAS is weaker because it can solve consensus in a nonblocking way only for 2 threads (it has consensus number 2), whereas CAS can solve consensus for any number of threads (infinite consensus number).
2007 Jul 09
1
[LLVMdev] Proposal for atomic and synchronization instructions
> > > "While the processor may spin and attempt the atomic operation more than > > > once before it is successful, research indicates this is extremely > > > uncommon." I don't understand this sentence, what do you mean? > > > > I'm not sure I can pinpoint the paper from which the statement is based, > > but I seem to recall something
2007 Jul 10
0
[LLVMdev] Proposal for atomic and synchronization instructions
On Tuesday 10 July 2007 01:38, Scott Michel wrote: > As Chandler pointed out, LL/SC isn't blocking. It belongs to the > optimistic concurrency class of constructs. One of the earliest papers > (IIRC, the first paper) on LL/SC was: > > Herlihy, M. 1993. A methodology for implementing highly concurrent data > objects. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 15, 5 (Nov. 1993), 745-770.
2007 Jul 09
7
[LLVMdev] Proposal for atomic and synchronization instructions
Hello, After a fair amount of research and work, I have put together a concrete proposal for LLVM representations of atomic operations and synchronization constructs. These aim to provide the minimal functionality in the IR for representing the hardware constructs that threading libraries and parallel programming rely on. http://chandlerc.net/llvm_atomics.html While I am no expert on the