Getting locks and sharing: was RE: Getting concurrency
Wed Jun 15 16:53:40 CEST 2005
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 07:31:49AM -0700, todd wrote:
} Would you make that integrate with typical OS processor scheduling
} mechanisms, or would it be something completely separate?
I'm not suggesting anything that complicated just that the distribution
would come with a version of "erl" which would detect the presence of
multiple CPUs and start one node bound to each. In this way there is
an easy, integrated, supported way of taking advantage of SMT. The two
main points being that a) the user didn't need to think about it and
b) the nodes are bound to specific CPUs instead of left to fend for
themselves (not that I know anything about how this works).
I'm not sure what to do after that. Do you make the "extra" nodes
hidden and try and load share behind the scenes or do you just leave
it at that and expect people to use normal erlang distribution?
More information about the erlang-questions