Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!ICST-CMR.ARPA!rbj
From: rbj@ICST-CMR.ARPA (Root Boy Jim)
Newsgroups: comp.emacs
Subject: parallel gemacs?
Message-ID: <8711161952.AA13337@icst-cmr.arpa.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 16-Nov-87 14:52:37 EST
Article-I.D.: icst-cmr.8711161952.AA13337
Posted: Mon Nov 16 14:52:37 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Nov-87 06:45:36 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 21


   Can anyone verify the feasability of lack thereof of a parallel
   version of gnu-emacs?  What I want to know is, is there a good reason
   that eval, map*, etc. cannot be done in parallel?  Like, does the
   existing lisp code presume sequential execution?

Maybe yes, maybe no. It probably doesn't matter. The relevant question is
what percent of your program can be done in parallel. If only ten percent
of your program can be done in parallel, and the rest must be done serially,
then even an infinite number of processors will only give you a 10% speedup.

Sequent's parallel processing stuff works by creating or using multiple
processes. In this case, the synchronization would probably overwhelm
the speedup. Don't bother.

   rich.

	(Root Boy) Jim Cottrell	<rbj@icst-cmr.arpa>
	National Bureau of Standards
	Flamer's Hotline: (301) 975-5688
	Why are these athletic shoe salesmen following me??