This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Roman Leshchinskiy

Programming Languages and Systems University of New South Wales

**What is this about?
**

What I do Data Parallel Haskell compiles nested data-parallel programs to ﬂat data-parallel ones lots of arrays and collective operations involved

**What is this about?
**

What I do Data Parallel Haskell compiles nested data-parallel programs to ﬂat data-parallel ones lots of arrays and collective operations involved

zipWith (-) (zipWith (*) (zipWith (-) (zipWith (-) (zipWith (*) (zipWith (-) (zipWith (-)

(replicate_s segd as1) xs) (replicate_s segd bs1) ys)) (replicate_s segd bs2) ys) (replicate_s segd as2) xs))

**What is this about?
**

What I do Data Parallel Haskell compiles nested data-parallel programs to ﬂat data-parallel ones lots of arrays and collective operations involved What other people do array programs with lots of collective operations

return . foldl’ hash 5381 . map toLower . filter isAlpha =<< readFile f

**What is this about?
**

What I do Data Parallel Haskell compiles nested data-parallel programs to ﬂat data-parallel ones lots of arrays and collective operations involved What other people do array programs with lots of collective operations What everybody wants no temporary arrays fused loops C-like speed

**Loop fusion is easy!
**

foo xs = map (*5) (map (+3) xs)

**Loop fusion is easy!
**

foo xs = map (*5) (map (+3) xs)

RULES

"map/map" map f (map g xs) = map (f . g) xs

**Loop fusion is easy!
**

foo xs = map (*5) (map (+3) xs) bar ys = filter even (filter (<42) ys)

RULES

"map/map" map f (map g xs) = map (f . g) xs

**Loop fusion is easy!
**

foo xs = map (*5) (map (+3) xs) bar ys = filter even (filter (<42) ys)

RULES

"map/map" "filter/filter" map f (map g xs) = map (f . g) xs filter f (filter g xs) = filter (λ x → f x && g x) xs

**Loop fusion is easy!
**

foo xs = map (*5) (map (+3) xs) bar ys = filter even (filter (<42) ys) baz zs = map (+1) (filter even zs)

RULES

"map/map" "filter/filter" map f (map g xs) = map (f . g) xs filter f (filter g xs) = filter (λ x → f x && g x) xs

**Loop fusion is easy!
**

foo xs = map (*5) (map (+3) xs) bar ys = filter even (filter (<42) ys) baz zs = map (+1) (filter even zs)

RULES

"map/map" "filter/filter" "map/filter" map f (map g xs) = map (f . g) xs filter f (filter g xs) = filter (λ x → f x && g x) xs map f (filter g xs) = mapFilter f g xs

**Loop fusion is easy!
**

foo xs = map (*5) (map (+3) xs) bar ys = filter even (filter (<42) ys) baz zs = map (+1) (filter even zs)

RULES

"map/map" "filter/filter" map f (map g xs) = map (f . g) xs filter f (filter g xs) = filter (λ x → f x && g x) xs "map/filter" map f (filter g xs) = mapFilter f g xs "map/mapFilter" map f (mapFilter g h xs) = mapFilter (f . g) h xs "mapFilter/filter" mapFilter f g (filter h xs) = mapFilter (f λ x → g x && h x) xs ...

**Loop fusion is easy!
**

foo xs = map (*5) (map (+3) xs) bar ys = filter even (filter (<42) ys) baz zs = map (+1) (filter even zs)

RULES

"map/map" "filter/filter" map f (map g xs) = map (f . g) xs filter f (filter g xs) = filter (λ x → f x && g x) xs "map/filter" map f (filter g xs) = mapFilter f g xs "map/mapFilter" map f (mapFilter g h xs) = mapFilter (f . g) h xs "mapFilter/filter" mapFilter f g (filter h xs) = mapFilter (f λ x → g x && h x) xs ...

AD B

EA ID

The challenge

use a constant number of rewrite rules don’t require new rules for new combinators make adding new combinators easy fuse everything! don’t require specialised compiler support handle both sequential and parallel loops

Sequential loops

Streams

data Step s a = Yield a s | Done data Stream a = ∃s. Stream (s → Step s a) s

Streams

stepper data Step s a = Yield a s | Done data Stream a = ∃s. Stream (s → Step s a) s

state

stepper produces next element and state from current state similar to an iterator actually encodes an anamorphism (unfold)

Streams

data Step s a = Yield a s | Done data Stream a = ∃s. Stream (s → Step s a) s stepper produces next element and state from current state similar to an iterator actually encodes an anamorphism (unfold)

sumS :: Num a ⇒ Stream a → a sumS (Stream step s) = go 0 s where go z s = case step s of Yield x s’ → go (z+x) s’ Done → z

Streams

data Step s a = Yield a s | Done data Stream a = ∃s. Stream (s → Step s a) s stepper produces next element and state from current state similar to an iterator actually encodes an anamorphism (unfold)

stream :: Array a → Stream a stream arr = Stream step 0 where step i | i < length arr = Yield (arr ! i) (i+1) | otherwise = Done

Streams

data Step s a = Yield a s | Done data Stream a = ∃s. Stream (s → Step s a) s stepper produces next element and state from current state similar to an iterator actually encodes an anamorphism (unfold)

mapS :: (a → b) → Stream a → Stream b mapS f (Stream step s) = Stream step’ s where step’ s = case step s of Yield x s’ → Yield (f x) s’ Done → Done

data Step s a = Yield a s | Done data Stream a = ∃s. Stream (s → Step s a) s stepper produces next element and state from current state similar to an iterator actually encodes an anamorphism (unfold)

unstream :: Stream a → Array a unstream (Stream step s) = <allocate, fill and freeze>

Stream fusion in three easy steps

**Stream fusion in three easy steps
**

Step 1: implement array operations in terms of streams sum :: Num a ⇒ Array a → a sum = sumS . stream map :: (a → b) → Array a → Array b map f = unstream . mapS f . stream

**Stream fusion in three easy steps
**

Step 1: implement array operations in terms of streams sum :: Num a ⇒ Array a → a sum = sumS . stream map :: (a → b) → Array a → Array b map f = unstream . mapS f . stream Step 2: inline them sumsq :: Num a ⇒ Array a → a sumsq = sum . map (λx -> x*x)

**Stream fusion in three easy steps
**

Step 1: implement array operations in terms of streams sum :: Num a ⇒ Array a → a sum = sumS . stream map :: (a → b) → Array a → Array b map f = unstream . mapS f . stream Step 2: inline them sumsq :: Num a ⇒ Array a → a sumsq = sum . map (λx -> x*x) = sumS . stream . unstream . mapS f . stream

**Stream fusion in three easy steps
**

Step 1: implement array operations in terms of streams sum :: Num a ⇒ Array a → a sum = sumS . stream map :: (a → b) → Array a → Array b map f = unstream . mapS f . stream Step 2: inline them sumsq :: Num a ⇒ Array a → a sumsq = sum . map (λx -> x*x) = sumS . stream . unstream . mapS f . stream

**Stream fusion in three easy steps
**

Step 1: implement array operations in terms of streams sum :: Num a ⇒ Array a → a sum = sumS . stream map :: (a → b) → Array a → Array b map f = unstream . mapS f . stream Step 2: inline them sumsq :: Num a ⇒ Array a → a sumsq = sum . map (λx -> x*x) = sumS . stream . unstream . mapS f . stream Step 3: eliminate stream/unstream pairs "stream/unstream" stream (unstream s) = s

**Stream fusion in three easy steps
**

Step 1: implement array operations in terms of streams sum :: Num a ⇒ Array a → a sum = sumS . stream map :: (a → b) → Array a → Array b map f = unstream . mapS f . stream Step 2: inline them sumsq :: Num a ⇒ Array a → a sumsq = sum . map (λx -> x*x) = sumS . mapS f . stream Step 3: eliminate stream/unstream pairs "stream/unstream" stream (unstream s) = s

**Stream fusion in three easy steps
**

Step 1: implement array operations in terms of streams sum :: Num a ⇒ Array a → a sum = sumS . stream

map :: (a → b) → Array a → Array b map f = unstream . mapS f . stream Step 2: inline them

sumsq :: Num a ⇒ Array a → a sumsq = sum . map (λx -> x*x) = sumS . mapS f . stream Step 3: eliminate stream/unstream pairs "stream/unstream" stream (unstream s) = s

Le tG

H

C

do

th

e

re st

**Optimising stream operations
**

sumsq xs = sumS (mapS square ( stream xs))

**Optimising stream operations
**

sumsq xs = sumS (mapS square ( stream xs)) inline

stream :: Array a → Stream a stream arr = Stream step 0 where step i | i < length arr = Yield (arr ! i) (i+1) | otherwise = Done

**Optimising stream operations
**

sumsq xs = sumS ( mapS square (Stream step1 0)) where step1 i = case i < length xs of True → Yield (xs ! i) (i+1) False → Done

**Optimising stream operations
**

sumsq xs = sumS ( mapS square (Stream step1 0)) where step1 i = case i < inline length xs of True → Yield (xs ! i) (i+1) False → Done

mapS :: (a → b) → Stream a → b mapS f (Stream step s) = Stream step’ s where step’ s = case step s of Yield x s’ → Yield (f x) s’ Done → Done

**Optimising stream operations
**

sumsq xs = sumS (Stream step2 0) where step1 i = case i < length xs of True → Yield (xs ! i) (i+1) False → Done step2 i = case step1 i of Yield x i’ → Yield (square x) i’ Done → Done

**Optimising stream operations
**

sumsq xs = sumS (Stream step2 0) where step1 i = case i < length xs of inline True → Yield (xs ! i) (i+1) False → Done step2 i = case step1 i of Yield x i’ → Yield (square x) i’ Done → Done sumS :: Num a ⇒ Stream a → a sumS (Stream step s) = go 0 s where go z s = case step s of Yield x s’ → go (z+x) s’ Done → z

**Optimising stream operations
**

sumsq xs = go 0 0 where step1 i = case i < length xs of True → Yield (xs ! i) (i+1) False → Done step2 i = case step1 i of Yield x i’ → Yield (square x) i’ Done → Done go z i = case step2 i of Yield x i’ → go (z+x) i’ Done → z

**Optimising stream operations
**

sumsq xs = go 0 0 where step1 i = case i < length xs of True → Yield (xs ! i) (i+1) False → Done step2 i = case step1 i of Yield x i’ → Yield (square x) i’ Done → Done go z i = case step2 i of Yield x i’ → go (z+x) i’ Done → inline z

**Optimising stream operations
**

sumsq xs = go 0 0 where step1 i = case i < length xs of True → Yield (xs ! i) (i+1) False → Done go z i = case (case step1 i Yield x i’ Done Yield x i’ → go Done → z of → Yield (square x) i’ → Done) of (z+x) i’

**Optimising stream operations
**

sumsq xs = go 0 0 where step1 i = case i < length xs of True → Yield (xs ! i) (i+1) case of case False → Done go z i = case (case step1 i of Yield x i’ → Yield (square x) i’ Done → Done) of Yield x i’ → go (z+x) i’ Done → z

**Optimising stream operations
**

sumsq xs = go 0 0 where step1 i = case i < length xs of True → Yield (xs ! i) (i+1) False → Done go z i = case step1 i of Yield x i’ → go (z + square x) i’ Done → z

**Optimising stream operations
**

sumsq xs = go 0 0 where step1 i = case i < length xs of True → Yield (xs ! i) (i+1) False → Done go z i = case step1 i of Yield x i’ → go (z + square x) i’ Done → inline z

**Optimising stream operations
**

sumsq xs = go 0 0 where go z i = case (case i < length xs of True → Yield (xs ! i) (i+1) False → Done) of Yield x i’ → go (z + square x) i’ Done → z

**Optimising stream operations
**

case of case sumsq xs = go 0 0 where go z i = case (case i < length xs of True → Yield (xs ! i) (i+1) False → Done) of Yield x i’ → go (z + square x) i’ Done → z

**Optimising stream operations
**

sumsq xs = go 0 0 where go z i = case i < length xs of True → go (z + square (xs ! i)) (i+1) False → z

**Optimising stream operations
**

sumsq xs = go 0 0 where go z i = case i < length xs of True → go (z + square (xs ! i)) (i+1) False → z

optimal loop no Stream or Step values ever created only general-purpose optimisations will be optimised further (unboxing etc.) requires a great compiler (thanks GHC team!)

**Why does it work?
**

sumsq xs = go 0 0 where step1 i = case i < length xs of True → Yield (xs ! i) (i+1) False → Done step2 i = case step1 i of Yield x i’ → Yield (square x) i’ Done → Done go z i = case step2 i of Yield x i’ → go (z+x) i’ Done → z

**Why does it work?
**

sumsq xs = go 0 0 where step1 i = case i < length xs of ive True -recuYield (xs ! i) (i+1) → rs non False → Done step2 i = case step1 i of Yield x i’ → Yield (square x) i’ Done → Done go z i = case step2 i of Yield x i’ → go (z+x) i’ Done → z

**Why does it work?
**

sumsq xs = go 0 0 where step1 i = case i < length xs of ive True -recuYield (xs ! i) (i+1) → rs non False → Done step2 i = case step1 i of ive Yield -recurs → Yield (square x) i’ x i’ non Done → Done go z i = case step2 i of Yield x i’ → go (z+x) i’ Done → z

**Why does it work?
**

sumsq xs = go 0 0 where step1 i = case i < length xs of ive True -recuYield (xs ! i) (i+1) → rs non False → Done step2 i = case step1 i of ive Yield -recurs → Yield (square x) i’ x i’ non Done → Done go z i = case step2 i of Yield xursive→ go (z+x) i’ i’ rec Done → z

A slight problem

filterS :: (a → Bool) → Stream a → Stream a filterS f (Stream step s) = Stream step’ s where step’ s = case step s of Yield x s’ | f x → Yield x s’ | otherwise → step s’ Done → Done

A slight problem

filterS :: (a → Bool) → Stream a → Stream a filterS f (Stream step s) = Stream step’ s where step’ s = case step s of Yield x s’ | f x cursive → Yield x s’ re | otherwise → step s’ Done → Done

Extending streams

Idea: allow a loop iteration not to produce an element

Extending streams

Idea: allow a loop iteration not to produce an element data Step s a = Yield a s | Skip s | Done

Extending streams

Idea: allow a loop iteration not to produce an element data Step s a = Yield a s | Skip s | Done filterS :: (a → Bool) → Stream a → Stream a filterS f (Stream step s) = Stream step’ s where step’ s = case step s of Yield x s’ | f x → Yield x s’ | otherwise → Skip s’ Skip s’ → Skip s’ Done → Done

Extending streams

Idea: allow a loop iteration not to produce an element data Step s a = Yield a s | Skip s | Done filterS :: (a → Bool) → Stream a → Stream a filterS f (Stream step s) = Stream step’ s where step’ s = case step s of Yield x s’ | f x → Yield x s’ ve ursi Skip s’ | otherwiseec → n-r Skip s’ no → Skip s’ Done → Done

Stream fusion - summary

encode loops by streams implement array operations in terms of streams eliminate stream/unstream pairs (temporaries) stream producers are non-recursive standard optimisations remove overhead (loop fusion)

Stream fusion - summary

encode loops by streams implement array operations in terms of streams eliminate stream/unstream pairs (temporaries) stream producers are non-recursive standard optimisations remove overhead (loop fusion)

Standard optimisations: inlining, case-of-case, worker/wrapper transformation, SpecConstr, LiberateCase, specialisation ...

Parallel loops

DPH on multicores

Evaluation strategy after vectorisation operations are data parallel and ﬂat executed by a gang of worker threads essentially fork-join parallelism

DPH on multicores

Evaluation strategy after vectorisation operations are data parallel and ﬂat executed by a gang of worker threads essentially fork-join parallelism

mapP :: (a → b) → Array a → Array b mapP f xs = <split xs across workers> <map f over each chunk> <collect local results>

DPH on multicores

Evaluation strategy after vectorisation operations are data parallel and ﬂat executed by a gang of worker threads essentially fork-join parallelism f is sequential mapP :: (a → b) → Array a → Array b mapP f xs = <split xs across workers> <map f over each chunk> <collect local results>

DPH on multicores

Evaluation strategy after vectorisation operations are data parallel and ﬂat executed by a gang of worker threads essentially fork-join parallelism

mapP :: (a → b) → Array a → Array b mapP f xs = <split xs across workers> <map f over each chunk> <collect local results> sumP :: Num a ⇒ Array a → a sumP xs = <split xs across workers> <sum each chunk> <reduce local sums>

Evaluation strategy after vectorisation operations are data parallel and ﬂat executed by a gang of worker threads essentially fork-join parallelism

sumsqP = sumP . mapP square

Evaluation strategy after vectorisation operations are data parallel and ﬂat executed by a gang of worker threads essentially fork-join parallelism

sumsqP xs = <split xs across workers> <map square over each chunk> <collect local results> <split results across workers> <sum each chunk> <reduce local sums>

Evaluation strategy after vectorisation operations are data parallel and ﬂat executed by a gang of worker threads essentially fork-join parallelism

sumsqP xs = <split xs across workers> <map square over each chunk> <collect local results> <split results across workers> <sum each chunk> <reduce local sums>

Evaluation strategy after vectorisation operations are data parallel and ﬂat executed by a gang of worker threads essentially fork-join parallelism

sumsqP xs = <split xs across workers> <map square over each chunk> <collect local results> <split results across workers> <sum each chunk> <reduce local sums>

Distributed types

Idea: let’s make the evaluation strategy explicit! (Keller 1999)

Distributed types

Idea: let’s make the evaluation strategy explicit! (Keller 1999) data Dist a Dist (Array a) Dist Double a is distributed across threads each thread has a local array (chunk) each thread has a local Double

Distributed types

Idea: let’s make the evaluation strategy explicit! (Keller 1999) data Dist a Dist (Array a) Dist Double splitD joinD a is distributed across threads each thread has a local array (chunk) each thread has a local Double distribute an array across threads collect thread-local chunks

splitD :: Array a → Dist (Array a) joinD :: Dist (Array a) → Array a

Distributed types

Idea: let’s make the evaluation strategy explicit! (Keller 1999) data Dist a Dist (Array a) Dist Double splitD joinD mapD sumD splitD joinD mapD sumD :: :: :: :: a is distributed across threads each thread has a local array (chunk) each thread has a local Double distribute an array across threads collect thread-local chunks execute a sequential operation in each thread compute sum of local values Array a → Dist (Array a) Dist (Array a) → Array a (a → b) → Dist a → Dist b Num a ⇒ Dist a → a

Programming with distributed types

mapP f xs = <split xs across workers> <map f over each chunk> <collect local results>

Programming with distributed types

mapP f = joinD . mapD (map f) . splitD

-- collect -- map f over chunks -- split

Programming with distributed types

mapP f = joinD . mapD (map f) . splitD

-- collect -- map f over chunks -- split

sumP xs = <split xs across workers> <sum each chunk> <reduce local sums>

Programming with distributed types

mapP f = joinD . mapD (map f) . splitD sumP = sumD . mapD sum . splitD

-- collect -- map f over chunks -- split -- reduce -- sum each chunk -- split

Fusing distributed types

sumsqP = sumP . mapP square

Fusing distributed types

sumsqP = . . . . .

sumD mapD sum splitD joinD mapD (map square) splitD

-------

reduce sum each chunk split collect map square over chunks split

Fusing distributed types

sumsqP = . . . . .

sumD mapD sum splitD joinD mapD (map square) splitD

-------

reduce sum each chunk split collect map square over chunks split

RULES

splitD (joinD xs) = xs

Fusing distributed types

sumsqP = . . .

sumD mapD sum mapD (map square) splitD

-----

reduce sum each chunk map square over chunks split

RULES

splitD (joinD xs) = xs

Fusing distributed types

sumsqP = . . .

sumD mapD sum mapD (map square) splitD

-----

reduce sum each chunk map square over chunks split

RULES

splitD (joinD xs) = xs mapD f (mapD g xs) = mapD (f . g) xs

Fusing distributed types

sumsqP = sumD -- reduce . mapD (sum . map square) -- work . splitD -- split

RULES

splitD (joinD xs) = xs mapD f (mapD g xs) = mapD (f . g) xs

Fusing distributed types

sumsqP = sumD -- reduce . mapD (sum . map square) -- work . splitD -- split stream fusion

RULES

splitD (joinD xs) = xs mapD f (mapD g xs) = mapD (f . g) xs

Distributed types on multicores

data Dist a splitD joinD mapD splitD/joinD mapD/mapD

a is distributed across threads distribute xs across threads collect thread-local chunks execute a sequential operation in each thread eliminate communication eliminate synchronisation

Distributed types on clusters

data Dist a splitD joinD mapD splitD/joinD mapD/mapD

a is distributed across nodes scatter gather execute operation on each node eliminate communication eliminate synchronisation

Distributed types on GPUs

data Dist a splitD joinD mapD splitD/joinD mapD/mapD

a is in GPU memory CPU −→ GPU transfer GPU −→ CPU transfer execute kernel on the GPU eliminate memory transfers (communication) fuse kernels (synchronisation)

Distribured types – summary

encode parallel loops as split/work/join eliminate unnecessary split/join pairs fuse sequential work (stream fusion) very general mechanism for fusing parallel computations applicable to a wide range of architectures again, no specialised compiler support

1

Obligatory benchmark

1

2

4

8

sumsq, Haskell dotp, C

sumsq, C smvm, Haskell

dotp, Haskell smvm, C

Runtime @ greyarea

10000

1000

100

10

1

1

2

4

8

16

32

64

sumsq, Haskell dotp, C

sumsq, C smvm, Haskell

dotp, Haskell smvm, C

Parting thoughts

it’s nice, it’s easy to use, it works high-level functional programs compiled to highly eﬃcient code even parallel ones! rewrite rules + great optimiser = win DPH doesn’t require any special-purpose optimisations try this in an imperative language...

Parting thoughts

it’s nice, it’s easy to use, it works high-level functional programs compiled to highly eﬃcient code even parallel ones! rewrite rules + great optimiser = win DPH doesn’t require any special-purpose optimisations ’ try this inoant imperative language... d n

Parting thoughts

it’s nice, it’s easy to use, it works high-level functional programs compiled to highly eﬃcient code even parallel ones! rewrite rules + great optimiser = win DPH doesn’t require any special-purpose optimisations ’ try this inoant imperative language... d n

Stream fusion: dph, bytestring, vector, uvector Distributed types: dph

- Building a business with Haskell
- Concurrent Orchestration in Haskell
- Hackage, Cabal and the Haskell Platform
- Practical Haskell Programming
- Engineering Large Projects in a Functional Language
- Multicore Haskell Now!
- An Introduction to Communicating Haskell Processes
- Multicore programming in Haskell
- The Semantics of Asynchronous Exceptions
- Evaluation strategies and synchronization
- Modern Benchmarking in Haskell
- Galois Tech Talk
- Multicore Haskell Now!
- Domain Specific Languages for Domain Specific Problems
- Specialising Generators for High-Performance Monte-Carlo Simulation ... in Haskell
- Haskell
- Improving Data Structures
- Haskell Arrays Accelerated with GPUs
- The Birth of the Industrial Haskell Group
- A Wander Through GHC's New IO Library
- The Design and Implementation of xmonad
- Stream Fusion for Haskell Arrays
- Engineering Large Projects in Haskell
- Supercompilation for Haskell

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot usefulhttp://unlines.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/talk-on-loop-fusion-in-haskell/
by Roman Leshchinskiy
Roman gave a talk about loop fusion in Haskell at FP-Syd, the Sydney Functional Programming group...

http://unlines.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/talk-on-loop-fusion-in-haskell/

by Roman Leshchinskiy

Roman gave a talk about loop fusion in Haskell at FP-Syd, the Sydney Functional Programming group. It covered stream fusion and fusion for distributed types which are two of the optimisations that make Data Parallel Haskell fast.

Original PDF: http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~rl/talks/fp-syd-fusion.pdf

by Roman Leshchinskiy

Roman gave a talk about loop fusion in Haskell at FP-Syd, the Sydney Functional Programming group. It covered stream fusion and fusion for distributed types which are two of the optimisations that make Data Parallel Haskell fast.

Original PDF: http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~rl/talks/fp-syd-fusion.pdf

- Webb Aes11
- CAQA5e_ch4
- Exercise 2 Answers
- cste1
- SIGIR2015_0399_0e0543aa4.pdf
- Advanced Java Interview Questions and Answers
- Java Que Bank
- Vdecyk Adaptable Pic Gpus
- Improving the Performance of OpenMP by Array Privatization
- Lock Free Vector
- 37-concurrency
- Chap7 Slides
- Java+Lab+Test+Final+Questions
- The Little Book of Semaphores - 2nd Edition
- Critical Section
- Collections
- Bernard Van Gastel 0121363 Reliability of a Read-write Lock Implementation
- Chapter 02
- Threads Sema
- Java5.0 TechBhginessWeek 2005
- Chap26 code listings
- New Microsoft Word Document
- Convolutio1 Koti
- Locks
- Module 3
- Assignment 1 With Solution
- Dr.watson MiniDump Analysis Using WinDBG
- Formal Verification with UPPAAL
- Intro Threads
- Java Con Currency
- Loop Fusion in Haskell