From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,292c095d622af1d0
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.238.67 with SMTP id vi3mr189756pbc.6.1337216813996;
        Wed, 16 May 2012 18:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 pr3ni7212pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsgate.cuhk.edu.hk!news.netfront.net!not-for-mail
From: Jeffrey Carter <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: basic question on Ada tasks and running on different cores
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 18:06:49 -0700
Organization: Also freenews.netfront.net; news.tornevall.net
Message-ID: <jp1ivb$o6m$1@adenine.netfront.net>
References: 
 <jo59po$s06$1@speranza.aioe.org><jo7u2o$c7c$1@speranza.aioe.org><30585369.219.1336470732142.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynbq3><jodnse$c29$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <jof8lf$adu$1@munin.nbi.dk><johu2d$9vj$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <jokb4f$jvm$1@munin.nbi.dk> <jp0ikh$b7q$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <jp1fnm$v56$1@munin.nbi.dk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 184.20.60.36
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: adenine.netfront.net 1337216813 24790 184.20.60.36 (17 May 2012
 01:06:53 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@netfront.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 01:06:53 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686;
 rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1
In-Reply-To: <jp1fnm$v56$1@munin.nbi.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-05-16T18:06:49-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 05/16/2012 05:11 PM, Randy Brukardt wrote:
>
> The problem is, if you're trying to implement fine-grained parallelism, you
> have to surround that code with some sort of scheduling mechanism, and that
> overhead means you aren't going to get anywhere near 100% of the CPU at any
> point.

The assumption here is that there are more tasks/threads/parallel things than 
there are processors/cores. That's generally true now, but they way things are 
going, it may not be true in the not-too-distant future (1-atom transistors 
could make for a lot of cores). When you have a core per task you no longer need 
scheduling.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"I blow my nose on you."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail
03

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---