I don't have access to it but maybe someone has this paper?: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=38844&coll=portal&dl=ACM
I wonder if there is some light there cheers,
Sebastian Sastre
-----Mensaje original----- De: squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org] En nombre de Peter William Lount Enviado el: Martes, 23 de Octubre de 2007 12:09 Para: The general-purpose Squeak developers list Asunto: Re: Multy-core CPUs, ERLANG
Hi,
Continued.
Of course one could also implement a copy-on-write-bit for objects in the "read-only-shared-top-level-object-space-of-the-image". In order to accomplish any work a process must be forked! Also, this way any process that forks off will need to copy all of the objects it modifies into it's own private object-space until the process commits it's changes into the top level object-space or until it aborts. That's assuming a Software Transactional Memory scheme is added to Smalltalk.
Actually this idea is quite appealing if done right.
Of course there are a host of other awesomely complex problems implied by the above that a simple concurrency model will NOT solve.
Concurrency isn't like automatic garbage collection - which is actually quite broad and complex a field - at all. The sets of problems with concurrent systems are way more complex. This is especially the case when you bring distribution beyond a single compute node into the fold and especially when other issues such as distributed garbage collection are required. Welcome to the complex world of tomorrow today.
What do the actual vendor's staff who write the virtual machines think about this?
All the best,
Peter William Lount