Considering a safety-critical application, composed of several tasks, I have the following question:
Is it possible to have tasks of different SILs in an application, or are all tasks the same SIL? I know that in HW it is possible to have a system of a certain SIL actually composed of subcomponents of different SIL. IEC 61508-2, sec 7.4.3 presents the rules to combine subsystems of different SILs to form a system of a greater SIL than the composing parts.
If it is possible, what are the rules to combine? References are very helpful.
For example, can a task of SIL 2 be the input for a task of SIL 3?
Thanks and good luck,
Yes it is possible. I recommend reading part 3 of latest version of IEC 61508 (IEC 61508-3:2010) Appendix F, ‘Techniques for achieving non-interference between software elements on a single computer”, it’s only 5 pages, but very informative. It outlines methods for achieving spatial and temporal independence of software modules with differing SIL levels.
As said earlier in this link, operating systems such as PikeOS and Vxworks should provide this partitioning; I do know SafeRTOS, which has been certified to IEC 61508, does provide this type of partitioning as standard.
You should look at systems based on ARINC 653 (and DO-297) or equivalent. Partition-based OSes are designed to answered this kind of need. I mean PikeOS, VxWorks, Integrity ...
As I said : ARINC 653 compliant RTOS (for aircraft) is exactly targeted towards this goal. DO-178B (the equivalent to IEC 61508 or ISO 26262 or Def-Stan 55/56) require a segmentation in space and time between partitions or different software assurance level (for you, SIL level). You may find equivalent systems for your specific market.
For linking different levels, there are inherent difficulties from the low level layers and communication channel. You will have to prove the determinism of your system at the higher level of security/safety/reliability (meaning the most difficult to obtain). Thus, communication could not be blocking, RTOS have to be certified to the higher level, ... This is taken into account in partition based RTOS, like ARINC 653 equivalent.
You may also have success with MILS Linux or virtualized systems (= hypervisors like XEN, OKL kernels)
You can combine SW modules with different SIL level, even if the Indipendent Safety Assessor will analyse you code deeply. The principle is simple: you have to demonstrate that a lower SIL module can't influence a greater SIL module. To achieve this, you have to keep in mind that a lower- SIL-function can call a greater-SIL-function, but the opposite must be strictly avoided.
In this scenario, to exchange data between two modules with different SIL level, you need a third module with a SIL level equal to the higher that provides to both the API to exchange data.
Example:
- a SIL3 task (T1) implements a fail-safe application protocol.
- a SIL0 task (T2) implements the TCP/IP stack, used as transport layer of the application protocol.
Of course, T1 and T2 have to exchange data in both direction.
You need a third task (T3), at least SIL3, that provides the inter-task communication API (e.g. some queues management functions). In this way either T1 than T2 call only the functions of T3 (that is SIL3) to exchange data.
A typical example of this kind of mechanism is the so called "blackboard", used in avionics application.
Related
I am planning to write something to take advantages of the many devices that I have at home.
Basically my aim is to use the laptop to execute calculations, and also to use my main desktop computer to add more power (and finish the task quicker). I work with cellular simulation and chemical interactions, so to me would be great to take advantage of all that I have available at home.
I am using mainly OSX, so I need something that may work with that OS. I can code in objective-C, C and C++.
I am aware of GCD, OpenCL and MPI, but I am not sure which way to go.
I was planning to not use the full power of my desktop but only some of the available cores (in this way I can continue to work on the desktop doing other tasks that are not so resource intensive). In particular I would love to use the graphic card power (it is an ATI card, so no CUDA), since all that I do mainly is spreadsheet, word and coding with Xcode, and the graphic card resources are basically unused in that scenario.
Is there a specific set of libraries or API, among the aforementioned 3, that would allow me to selectively route tasks, and use resources on another machine without leaving the control totally to the compiler? I've heard that GCD is great but it has very limited control on where the blocks are executed, while MPI is on the other side of the spectrum....OpenCL seems to be in the middle.
Before diving in one of these technologies I would like to know which one would most likely suit my needs; I am sure that some other researcher has already used successfully parallel computing to achieve what I am trying to achieve.
Thanks in advance.
MPI is more for scientific computing large scale many processors many nodes exc not for a weekend project, for what you describe I would suggest using OpenCl or any one the more distributed framework of AMQP protocol families, such as zeromq or rabbitMQ, or a combination of OpenCl and AMQP , or even simpler consider multithreading , i would suggest OpenMP for that. I'm not sure if you are looking for direct solvers or parallel functions but there are many that exist as well for gpu's and cpu's which you can find on the web
Sorry, but this question simply cannot be meaningfully answered as posed. To be sure, I could toss out a collection of buzzwords describing various technologies to look at like GCD, OpenMPI, OpenCL, CUDA and any number of other technologies which allow one to run a single program on multiple cores, multiple programs on different cooperating computers, or a single program distributed across CPU and GPU, and it sounds like you know about a number of those already so I wouldn't even be adding much value in listing the buzzwords.
To simply toss out such terms without knowing the full specifics of the problem you're trying to solve, however, is a bit like saying that you know English, French and a little German so sure, by all means - mix them all together in a single paragraph without knowing anything about the target audience! Similarly, you can parallelize a given computation in any number of ways, across any number of different processing elements, but whether that parallelization is actually a win or not is going to be entirely dependent on the nature of the algorithm, its data dependencies, how much computation is expected for each reasonable "work chunk", and whether it can be executed on a GPU with sufficient numeric precision, among many other factors. The more complex the technology you choose, the more those factors matter and the greater the possibility that the resulting code will actually be slower than its single-threaded, single machine counterpart. IPC overhead and data copying can, and frequently do, swamp all of the gains one might realize from trying to naively parallelize something and then add additional overhead on top of that, resulting in a net loss. This is why engineers who can do this kind of work meaningfully and well are in such high demand. :)
Without knowing anything about your calculations, I would move in baby steps. First try a simple multi-processor framework like GCD (which is already built in to OS X and requires no additional dependencies to use) and figure out how to factor your code such that it can effectively use all of the available cores on a single machine. Once you've learned where the wins are (and if there even are any - if multi-threading isn't helping, multi-machine parallelization almost certainly won't either), try setting up several instances of the calculation on several machines with a simple IPC model that allows for distributing the work. Having already factored your algorithm(s) for multiple threads, it should be comparatively straight-forward to further generalize the approach across multiple machines (though it bears noting that the two are NOT the same problem and either way you still want to use all the cores available on any of the given target machines, so the two challenges are both complimentary and orthogonal).
I can't find any info on this online... I am also new to Prolog...
It seems to me that Prolog could be highly concurrent, perhaps trying many possibilities at once when trying to match a rule. Are modern Prolog compilers/interpreters inherently* concurrent? Which ones? Is concurrency on by default? Do I need to enable it somehow?
* I am not interested in multi-threading, just inherent concurrency.
Are modern Prolog compilers/interpreters inherently* concurrent? Which ones? Is concurrency on by default?
No. Concurrent logic programming was the main aim of the 5th Generation Computer program in Japan in the 1980s; it was expected that Prolog variants would be "easily" parallelized on massively parallel hardware. The effort largely failed, because automatic concurrency just isn't easy. Today, Prolog compilers tend to offer threading libraries instead, where the program must control the amount of concurrency by hand.
To see why parallelizing Prolog is as hard as any other language, consider the two main control structures the language offers: conjunction (AND, serial execution) and disjunction (OR, choice with backtracking). Let's say you have an AND construct such as
p(X) :- q(X), r(X).
and you'd want to run q(X) and r(X) in parallel. Then, what happens if q partially unifies X, say by binding it to f(Y). r must have knowledge of this binding, so either you've got to communicate it, or you have to wait for both conjuncts to complete; then you may have wasted time if one of them fails, unless you, again, have them communicate to synchronize. That gives overhead and is hard to get right. Now for OR:
p(X) :- q(X).
p(X) :- r(X).
There's a finite number of choices here (Prolog, of course, admits infinitely many choices) so you'd want to run both of them in parallel. But then, what if one succeeds? The other branch of the computation must be suspended and its state saved. How many of these states are you going to save at once? As many as there are processors seems reasonable, but then you have to take care to not have computations create states that don't fit in memory. That means you have to guess how large the state of a computation is, something that Prolog hides from you since it abstracts over such implementation details as processors and memory; it's not C.
In other words, automatic parallelization is hard. The 5th Gen. Computer project got around some of the issues by designing committed-choice languages, i.e. Prolog dialects without backtracking. In doing so, they drastically changed the language. It must be noted that the concurrent language Erlang is an offshoot of Prolog, and it too has traded in backtracking for something that is closer to functional programming. It still requires user guidance to know what parts of a program can safely be run concurrently.
In theory that seems attractive, but there are various problems that make such an implementation seem unwise.
for better or worse, people are used to thinking of their programs as executing left-to-right and top-down, even when programming in Prolog. Both the order of clauses for a predicate and of terms within a clause is semantically meaningful in standard Prolog. Parallelizing them would change the behaviour of far too much exising code to become popular.
non-relational language elements such as the cut operator can only be meaningfully be used when you can rely on such execution orders, i.e. they would become unusable in a parallel interpreter unless very complicated dependency tracking were invented.
all existing parallelization solutions incur at least some performance overhead for inter-thread communication.
Prolog is typically used for high-level, deeply recursive problems such as graph traversal, theorem proving etc. Parallelization on a modern machines can (ideally) achieve a speedup of n for some constant n, but it cannot turn an unviable recursive solution method into a viable one, because that would require an exponential speedup. In contrast, the numerical problems that Fortran and C programmers usually solve typically have a high but quite finite cost of computation; it is well worth the effort of parallelization to turn a 10-hour job into a 1-hour job. In contrast, turning a program that can look about 6 moves ahead into one that can (on average) look 6.5 moves ahead just isn't as compelling.
There are two notions of concurrency in Prolog. One is tied to multithreading, the other to suspended goals. I am not sure what you want to know. So I will expand a little bit about multithreading first:
Today widely available Prolog system can be differentiated whether they are multithreaded or not. In a multithreaded Prolog system you can spawn multiple threads that run concurrently over the same knowledge base. This poses some problems for consult and dynamic predicates, which are solved by these Prolog systems.
You can find a list of the Prolog systems that are multithreaded here:
Operating system and Web-related features
Multithreading is a prerequesite for various parallelization paradigmas. Correspondingly the individudal Prolog systems provide constructs that serve certain paradigmas. Typical paradigmas are thread pooling, for example used in web servers, or spawning a thread for long running GUI tasks.
Currently there is no ISO standard for a thread library, although there has been a proposal and each Prolog system has typically rich libraries that provide thread synchronization, thread communication, thread debugging and foreign code threads. A certain progress in garbage collection in Prolog system was necessary to allow threaded applications that have potentially infinitely long running threads.
Some existing layers even allow high level parallelization paradigmas in a Prolog system independent fashion. For example Logtalk has some constructs that map to various target Prolog systems.
Now lets turn to suspended goals. From older Prolog systems (since Prolog II, 1982, in fact) we know the freeze/2 command or blocking directives. These constructs force a goal not to be expanded by existing clauses, but instead put on a sleeping list. The goal can the later be woken up. Since the execution of the goal is not immediate but only when it is woken up, suspended goals are sometimes seen as concurrent goals,
but the better notion for this form of parallelism would be coroutines.
Suspended goals are useful to implement constraint solving systems. In the simplest case the sleeping list is some variable attribute. But a newer approach for constraint solving systems are constraint handling rules. In constraint handling rules the wake up conditions can be suspended goal pair patterns. The availability of constraint solving either via suspended goals or constraint handling rules can be seen here:
Overview of Prolog Systems
Best Regards
From a quick google search it appears that the concurrent logic programming paradigm has only been the basis for a few research languages and is no longer actively developed. I have seen claims that concurrent logic is easy to do in the Mozart/Oz system.
There was great hope in the 80s/90s to bake parallelism into the language (thus making it "inherently" parallel), in particular in the context of the Fifth Generation Project. Even special hardware constructs were studied to implement "Parallel Inference Machine" (PIM) (Similar to the special hardware for LISP machines in the "functional programming" camp). Hardware efforts were abandoned due to continual improvement of off-the-shelf CPUs and software effort were abandoned due to excessive compiler complexity, lack of demand for hard-to-implement high-level features and likely lack of payoff: parallelism that looks transparent and elegantly exploitable at the language level generally means costly inter-process communication and transactional locking "under the hood".
A good read about this is
"The Deevolution of Concurrent Logic Programming Languages"
by Evan Tick, March 1994. Appeared in "Journal of Logic Programming, Tenth Anniversary Special Issue, 1995". The Postscript file linked to is complete, unlike the PDF you get at Elsevier.
The author says:
There are two main views of concurrent logic programming and its
development over the past several years [i.e. 1990-94]. Most logic programming
literature views concurrent logic programming languages as a
derivative or variant of logic programs, i.e., the main difference
being the extensive use of "don't care" nondeterminism rather than
"don't know" (backtracking) nondeterminism. Hence the name committed
choice or CC languages. A second view is that concurrent logic
programs are concurrent, reactive programs, not unlike other
"traditional" concurrent languages such as 'C' with explicit message
passing, in the sense that procedures are processes that communicate
over data streams to incrementally produce answers. A cynic might say
that the former view has more academic richness, whereas the latter
view has more practical public relations value.
This article is a survey of implementation techniques of concurrent
logic programming languages, and thus full disclosure of both of these
views is not particularly relevant. Instead, a quick overview of basic
language semantics, and how they relate to fundamental programming
paradigms in a variety of languages within the family, will suffice.
No attempt will be made to cover the many feasible programming
paradigms; nor semantical nuances, nor the family history. (...).
The main point I wish to make in this article is that concurrent logic
programming languages have been deevolving since their inception,
about ten years ago, because of the following tatonnement:
Systems designers and compiler writers could supply only certain limited features in robust; efficient implementations. This drove the
market to accept these restricted languages as, in some informal
sense, de facto standards.
Programmers became aware that certain, more expressive language features were not critically important to getting applications
written, and did not demand their inclusion.
Thus my stance in this article will be a third view: how the initially
rich languages gradually lost their "teeth," and became weaker, but
more practically implementable, and achieved faster performance.
The deevolutionary history begins with Concurrent Prolog (deep guards,
atomic unification; read-only annotated variables for
synchronization), and after a series of reductions (for example: GHC
(input-matching synchronization), Parlog (safe), FCP (flat), Fleng (no
guards), Janus (restricted communication), Strand (assignment rather
than output unification)), and ends for now with PCN (flat guards,
non-atomic assignments input-matching synchronization, and
explicitly-defined mutable variables). This and other terminology will
be defined as the article proceeds.
This view may displease some
readers because it presupposes that performance is the main driving
force of the language market; and furthermore that the main "added
value" of concurrent logic programs over logic programs is the ability
to naturally exploit parallelism to gain speed. Certainly the reactive
nature of the languages also adds value; e.g., in building complex
object-oriented applications. Thus one can argue that the deevolution
witnessed is a bad thing when reactive capabilities are being traded
for speed.
ECLiPSe-CLP, a language "largely backward-compatible with Prolog", supports OR-parallelism, even though "this functionality is currently not actively maintained because of other priorities".
[1,2] document OR- (and AND-)parallelism in ECLiPSe-CLP.
However, I tried to get it working some time using the code from ECLiPSe-CLP's repository, but I didn't get it though.
[1] http://eclipseclp.org/reports/book.ps.gz
[2] http://eclipseclp.org/doc/bips/kernel/compiler/parallel-1.html
in many distributed computing applications, you maintain a distributed array of objects. Each process manages a set of objects that it may read and write exclusively and furthermore a set of objects that may only read (the content of which is authored by and frequently recerived from other processes).
This is very basic and is likely to have been done a zillion times until times until now - for example, with MPI. Hence I suppose there is something like an open source extension for MPI, which provides the basic capabilities of a distributed array for computing.
Ideally, it would be written in C(++) and mimic the official MPI standard interface style. Does anybody know anything like that? Thank you.
From what I gather from your question, you're looking for a mechanism for allowing a global view (read-only) of the problem space, but each process has ownership (read-write) of a segment of the data.
MPI is simply an API specification for inter-process communication for parallel applications and any implementation of it will work at a level lower than what you are looking for.
It is quite common in HPC applications to perform data decomposition in a way that you mentioned, with MPI used to synchronise shared data to other processes. However each application have different sharing patterns and requirements (some may wish to only exchange halo regions with neighbouring nodes, and perhaps using non-blocking calls to overlap communication other computation) so as to improve performance by making use of knowledge of the problem domain.
The thing is, using MPI to sync data across processes is simple but implementing a layer above it to handle general purpose distribute array synchronisation that is easy to use yet flexible enough to handle different use cases can be rather trickly.
Apologies for taking so long to get to the point, but to answer your question, AFAIK there isn't be an extension to MPI or a library that can efficiently handle all use cases while still being easier to use than simply using MPI. However, it is possible to to work above the level of MPI which maintaining distributed data. For example:
Use the PGAS model to work with your data. You can then use libraries such as Global Arrays (interfaces for C, C++, Fortran, Python) or languages that support PGAS such as UPC or Co-Array Fortran (soon to be included into the Fortran standards). There are also languages designed specifically for this form of parallelism, i,e. Fortress, Chapel, X10
Roll your own. For example, I've worked on a library that uses MPI to do all the dirty work but hides the complexity by providing creating custom data types for the application domain, and exposing APIs such as:
X_Create(MODE, t_X) : instantiate the array, called by all processes with the MODE indicating if the current process will require READ-WRITE or READ-ONLY access
X_Sync_start(t_X) : non-blocking call to initiate synchronisation in the background.
X_Sync_complete(t_X) : data is required. Block if synchronisation has not completed.
... and other calls to delete data as well as perform domain specific tasks that may require MPI calls.
To be honest, in most cases it is often simpler to stick with basic MPI or OpenMP, or if one exists, using a parallel solver written for the application domain. This of course depends on your requirements.
For dense arrays, see Global Arrays and Elemental (Google will find them for you).
For sparse arrays, see PETSc.
I know this is a really short answer, but there is too much documentation of these elsewhere to bother repeating it.
I came across the following statement in Trapexit, an Erlang community website:
Erlang is a programming language used
to build massively scalable soft
real-time systems with requirements on
high availability.
Also I recall reading somewhere that Twitter switched from Ruby to Scala to address scalability problem.
Hence, I wonder what is the relation between a programming language and scalability?
I would think that scalability depends only on the system design, exception handling etc. Is it because of the way a language is implemented, the libraries, or some other reasons?
Hope for enlightenment. Thanks.
Erlang is highly optimized for a telecommunications environment, running at 5 9s uptime or so.
It contains a set of libraries called OTP, and it is possible to reload code into the application 'on the fly' without shutting down the application! In addition, there is a framework of supervisor modules and so on, so that when something fails, it gets automatically restarted, or else the failure can gradually work itself up the chain until it gets to a supervisor module that can deal with it.
That would be possible in other languages of course too. In C++, you can reload dlls on the fly, load plugsin. In Python you can reload modules. In C#, you can load code in on-the-fly, use reflection and so on.
It's just that that functionality is built in to Erlang, which means that:
it's more standard, any erlang developer knows how it works
less stuff to re-implement oneself
That said, there are some fundamental differences between languages, to the extent that some are interpreted, some run off bytecode, some are native compiled, so the performance, and the availability of type information and so on at runtime differs.
Python has a global interpreter lock around its runtime library so cannot make use of SMP.
Erlang only recently had changes added to take advantage of SMP.
Generally I would agree with you in that I feel that a significant difference is down to the built-in libraries rather than a fundamental difference between the languages themselves.
Ultimately I feel that any project that gets very large risks getting 'bogged down' no matter what language it is written in. As you say I feel architecture and design are pretty fundamental to scalability and choosing one language over another will not I feel magically give awesome scalability...
Erlang comes from another culture in thinking about reliability and how to achieve it. Understanding the culture is important, since Erlang code does not become fault-tolerant by magic just because its Erlang.
A fundamental idea is that high uptime does not only come from a very long mean-time-between-failures, it also comes from a very short mean-time-to-recovery, if a failure happened.
One then realize that one need automatic restarts when a failure is detected. And one realize that at the first detection of something not being quite right then one should "crash" to cause a restart. The recovery needs to be optimized, and the possible information losses need to be minimal.
This strategy is followed by many successful softwares, such as journaling filesystems or transaction-logging databases. But overwhelmingly, software tends to only consider the mean-time-between-failure and send messages to the system log about error-indications then try to keep on running until it is not possible anymore. Typically requiring human monitoring the system and manually reboot.
Most of these strategies are in the form of libraries in Erlang. The part that is a language feature is that processes can "link" and "monitor" each other. The first one is a bi-directional contract that "if you crash, then I get your crash message, which if not trapped will crash me", and the second is a "if you crash, i get a message about it".
Linking and monitoring are the mechanisms that the libraries use to make sure that other processes have not crashed (yet). Processes are organized into "supervision" trees. If a worker process in the tree fails, the supervisor will attempt to restart it, or all workers at the same level of that branch in the tree. If that fails it will escalate up, etc. If the top level supervisor gives up the application crashes and the virtual machine quits, at which point the system operator should make the computer restart.
The complete isolation between process heaps is another reason Erlang fares well. With few exceptions, it is not possible to "share values" between processes. This means that all processes are very self-contained and are often not affected by another process crashing. This property also holds between nodes in an Erlang cluster, so it is low-risk to handle a node failing out of the cluster. Replicate and send out change events rather than have a single point of failure.
The philosophies adopted by Erlang has many names, "fail fast", "crash-only system", "recovery oriented programming", "expose errors", "micro-restarts", "replication", ...
Erlang is a language designed with concurrency in mind. While most languages depend on the OS for multi-threading, concurrency is built into Erlang. Erlang programs can be made from thousands to millions of extremely lightweight processes that can run on a single processor, can run on a multicore processor, or can run on a network of processors. Erlang also has language level support for message passing between processes, fault-tolerance etc. The core of Erlang is a functional language and functional programming is the best paradigm for building concurrent systems.
In short, making a distributed, reliable and scalable system in Erlang is easy as it is a language designed specially for that purpose.
In short, the "language" primarily affects the vertical axii of scaling but not all aspects as you already eluded to in your question. Two things here:
1) Scalability needs to be defined in relation to a tangible metric. I propose money.
S = # of users / cost
Without an adequate definition, we will discussing this point ad vitam eternam. Using my proposed definition, it becomes easier to compare system implementations. For a system to be scalable (read: profitable), then:
Scalability grows with S
2) A system can be made to scale based on 2 primary axis:
a) Vertical
b) Horizontal
a) Vertical scaling relates to enhancing nodes in isolation i.e. bigger server, more RAM etc.
b) Horizontal scaling relates to enhancing a system by adding nodes. This process is more involving since it requires dealing with real world properties such as speed of light (latency), tolerance to partition, failures of many kinds etc.
(Node => physical separation, different "fate sharing" from another)
The term scalability is too often abused unfortunately.
Too many times folks confuse language with libraries & implementation. These are all different things. What makes a language a good fit for a particular system has often more to do with the support around the said language: libraries, development tools, efficiency of the implementation (i.e. memory footprint, performance of builtin functions etc.)
In the case of Erlang, it just happens to have been designed with real world constraints (e.g. distributed environment, failures, need for availability to meet liquidated damages exposure etc.) as input requirements.
Anyways, I could go on for too long here.
First you have to distinguish between languages and their implementations. For instance ruby language supports threads, but in the official implementation, the thread will not make use of multicore chips.
Then, a language/implementation/algorithm is often termed scalable when it supports parallel computation (for instance via multithread) AND if it exhibits a good speedup increase when the number of CPU goes up (see Amdahl Law).
Some languages like Erlang, Scala, Oz etc. have also syntax (or nice library) which help writing clear and nice parallel code.
In addition to the points made here about Erlang (Which I was not aware of) there is a sense in which some languages are more suited for scripting and smaller tasks.
Languages like ruby and python have some features which are great for prototyping and creativity but terrible for large scale projects. Arguably their best features are their lack of "formality", which hurts you in large projects.
For example, static typing is a hassle on small script-type things, and makes languages like java very verbose. But on a project with hundreds or thousands of classes you can easily see variable types. Compare this to maps and arrays that can hold heterogeneous collections, where as a consumer of a class you can't easily tell what kind of data it's holding. This kind of thing gets compounded as systems get larger. e.g. You can also do things that are really difficult to trace, like dynamically add bits to classes at runtime (which can be fun but is a nightmare if you're trying to figure out where a piece of data comes from) or call methods that raise exceptions without being forced by the compiler to declare the exception. Not that you couldn't solve these kinds of things with good design and disciplined programming - it's just harder to do.
As an extreme case, you could (performance issues aside) build a large system out of shell scripts, and you could probably deal with some of the issues of the messiness, lack of typing and global variables by being very strict and careful with coding and naming conventions ( in which case you'd sort of be creating a static typing system "by convention"), but it wouldn't be a fun exercise.
Twitter switched some parts of their architecture from Ruby to Scala because when they started they used the wrong tool for the job. They were using Ruby on Rails—which is highly optimised for building green field CRUD Web applications—to try to build a messaging system. AFAIK, they're still using Rails for the CRUD parts of Twitter e.g. creating a new user account, but have moved the messaging components to more suitable technologies.
Erlang is at its core based on asynchronous communication (both for co-located and distributed interactions), and that is the key to the scalability made possible by the platform. You can program with asynchronous communication on many platforms, but Erlang the language and the Erlang/OTP framework provides the structure to make it manageable - both technically and in your head. For instance: Without the isolation provided by erlang processes, you will shoot yourself in the foot. With the link/monitor mechanism you can react on failures sooner.
And how would it pertain to performance and memory issues? Is it more a problem on AIX than Solaris or Windows?
A mutex is just a lock. Like the lock on a portapotty - makes sure only one person uses it at a time. There are many types of mutual exclusion, for a good overview you should check out Operating Systems: Design and Implementation by Andrew S. Tanenbaum or osdev.org. I have never heard of a "split mutex" before, and Google returns nothing. However, the term "split" suggests that it is shared hence not mutually excluded (multiple people in the portapotty), which doesn't quite make sense.
Usually you don't have to worry about mutexes unless you are designing an operating system or a device driver. And the only way they would affect performance is if the resource being locked is in high demand by other processes (i.e. there's a big line-up for the portapotty).
Unless you have some extenuating situations like SMP, etc. it is best to leave it up to the operating system to decide how to handle mutexes and resources, as that's what its there fore.
I'm sorry I couldn't be of more assistance. I don't know anything about "split" mutexes. If its specific to AIX you might want to check IBM manuals, otherwise there might be able to find something in some IEEE research papers.
UPDATE: Upon further investigation, this seems to be a case of common case optimization. The mutex is "split" into two cases: 1) the common case where nothing special is needed, some safety checks can be assumed or kernel functions bypassed called the fastpath or 2) we can't assume that the checks pass or cannot do certain optimizations, called the slowpath. Amdahl's law is often used to quantify such case optimization.