Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #161730

Re: Which Books Can You Recommend For Learning Computer Programming?

From	Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com>
Newsgroups	alt.folklore.computers
Subject	Re: Which Books Can You Recommend For Learning Computer Programming?
Date	2016-03-31 10:08 -0700
Organization	Wheeler&Wheeler
Message-ID	<87h9fmlgmm.fsf@garlic.com> (permalink)
References	(6 earlier) <20160329134207.4d7d77389889326e422c0e55@eircom.net> <nded5p01388@news3.newsguy.com> <20160330065507.6eacbe72e757cd7cddedc07e@eircom.net> <87k2kji3d8.fsf@roadgrime.nodomain.nowhere> <dcdqfbt0299cf3h15me2bgvb6t7v5f4mdg@4ax.com>

Show all headers | View raw

Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> writes:
> Multiprocessor mainframes where around when I was a computer engineer
> in the 1970s. The number of processors didn't make any difference to
> most programs. It was left up to the low levels of the operating
> system to decide which thread ran on which processors. On Windows
> SetThreadIdealProcessor is the key. I can't remember if UNIX has
> anything similar . 

I've commented before about charlie invented compare&swap (chosen
because CAS are his initials) while doing fine-grain multiprocessor
locking working on CP67 at the science center.
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech
and
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#smp

then we attempted to get it added to 370 architecture. initially was
rebuffed because the POK favorite son operating system people said that
test&set was more than adequate for multiprocessor support (serializing
critical code sections). The 370 architecture owners said that to get it
justified would require additional uses, not just multiprocessor
serialization. Thus was invented the multiprogramming/multithreading
examples (used whether or not running on multiprocessor machine) that
still are shown in the principles of operation.

This was especially leveraged by large multithreading DBMS avoiding
needing to make kernel calls for lots of serialization ... and by the
80s lots of other platforms (especially those supporting high-throughput DBMS)
were including compare&swap (or instructions with similar semantics).

Since then there has been quite a bit about holy grail in programming to
provide paradigm easily supporting multiple concurrent operations ...
instead of sequential, serial, step-by-step operation.

Old posts repeating story of Gates ordering Intel to keep producing
faster&faster single processor/core chips ... because multi-core
software programming was too hard. Gelsinger tells Gates that it wasn't
going to work that way:
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2007i.html#78 John W. Backus, 82, Fortran developer, dies
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2007m.html#2 John W. Backus, 82, Fortran developer, dies
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2008f.html#42 Panic in Multicore Land
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2012e.html#15 Why do people say "the soda loop is often depicted as a simple loop"?
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2012j.html#44 Monopoly/ Cartons of Punch Cards
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#90 Blades versus z was Re: Turn Off Another Light - Univ. of Tennessee
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2012m.html#28 I.B.M. Mainframe Evolves to Serve the Digital World
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2013.html#48 New HD
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#85 Parallel programming may not be so daunting
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2014m.html#118 By the time we get to 'O' in OODA

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

Thread

csiph-web