ZOMFG: We either need new tools, new languages or both! Right Now!
Here's one example. You can find others. "Taming the Multicore Beast":
The next piece is application software, and most of the code that has been written in the past has been written using a serial approach. There is no easy way to compile that onto multiple cores, although there are tools to help.
That's hooey. Application software is already working in a multicore environment; it has been waiting for multi-core hardware. And it requires little or no modification.
Any Linux-based OS (and even Windows) will take a simple shell pipeline and assure that the processing elements are spread around among the various cores.
Pipelines and Concurrency
A shell pipeline -- viewed as Programming In The Large -- is not "written using a serial approach". Each stage of a shell pipeline runs concurrently, and folks have been leveraging that since Unix's inception in the late 60's.
When I do python p1.py | python p2.py, both processes run concurrently. Most OS's will farm them out so that each process is on its own core. That wasn't hard, was it?
I got this email recently:
Then today, I saw the book Software Pipelines and SOA: Releasing the Power of Multi-Core ProcessingBy Cory Isaacson
At that point, I figured that there are a lot of yahoos out there that are barking up the wrong tree.
I agree in general. I don't agree with all of Isaacson's approach. A big ESB-based SOA architecture may be too much machinery for something that may turn out to be relatively simple.
Many problems are easily transformed into map-reduce problems. A "head" will push data down a shell pipeline. Each step on the pipeline is a "map" step that does one incremental transformation on the data. A "reduce" step can combine data for further maps.
This can be expressed simply as: head.py | map1.py | map2.py | reduce1.py | map3.py. You'll use both cores heavily.
Some folks like to really focus on "balancing" the workload so that each core has precisely the same amount of work.
You can do that, but it's not really going to help much. The OS mostly does this by ordinary demand-based scheduling. Further fine-tuning is a nice idea, but hardly worth the effort until all other optimization cards have been played. Even then, you'd simply be moving the functionality around to refactor map1.py | map2.py to be a single process, map12.py.
Easy and well-understood.
The Hard Problems involve "fan-out" and "fan-in". Sometimes we think we need a thread pool and a queue of processing agents. Sometimes this isn't actually necessary because a simple map-reduce pipeline may be all we need.
But just sometimes, there's a fan-out where we need multiple concurrent map processors to handle some long-running, complex transformation. In this case, we might want an ESB and other machinery to handle the fan-out/fan-in problem. Or, we might just need a JMS message queue that has a one writer and multiple readers (1WmR).
A pipeline has one writer and one reader (1W1R). The reason why fan-out is hard is that Linux doesn't offer a trivial (1WmR) abstraction.
Even fan-in is easier: we have a many writer one reader (mW1R) abstraction available in the select function.
The simplest way to do fan-out is to have a parent which forks a number of identical children. The parent then simply round-robins the requests among the children. It's not optimal, but it's simple.
Want to make effective use of your fancy, new multi-core processors?
Use Linux pipelines. Right now. Don't wait for new tools or new languages.
Don't try to decide which threading library is optimal.
Simply refactor your programs using a simple Map-Reduce design pattern.