[pypy-dev] Would the following shared memory model be possible?

William Leslie william.leslie.ttg at gmail.com
Thu Jul 29 09:32:57 CEST 2010

On 29 July 2010 17:27, Maciej Fijalkowski <fijall at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 7:18 AM, William Leslie
> <william.leslie.ttg at gmail.com> wrote:
>> When an object is mutable, it must be visible to at most one thread.
>> This means it can participate in return values, arguments and queues,
>> but the sender cannot keep a reference to an object it sends, because
>> if the receiver mutates the object, this will need to be reflected in
>> the sender's thread to ensure internal consistency. Well, you could
>> ignore internal consistency, require explicit locking, and have it
>> segfault when the change to the length of your list has propogated but
>> not the element you have added, but that wouldn't be much fun. The
>> alternative, implicitly writing updates back to memory as soon as
>> possible and reading them out of memory every time, can be hundreds or
>> more times slower. So you really can't have two tasks sharing mutable
>> objects, ever.
>> --
>> William Leslie
> Hi.
> Do you have any data points supporting your claim?

About the performance of programs that involve a cache miss on every
memory access, or internal consistency?

William Leslie

More information about the Pypy-dev mailing list