The transactional memory concept is unusual in that it seems to have proponents both at the chip level (Azul, Sun's failed Rock SPARC CPU, IBM, Intel) and in the functional language community, most notably Haskell. I suspect the functional language community is motivated by the simplicity of the concurrency abstraction, and the chip community are motivated by the transistor use case. There doesn't seem to be the same demand for it from the vast middle ground of OSs, middleware, applications etc. Does this signify something?
Two things have seemed rather opaque in most coverage of transactional memory systems. The first is when and why it is better than using explicit locking / atomic operations. The second is the time+space properties of actual implementations. Too many expositions are still bound up in the simplicity of the interface to discuss the real benefits and drawbacks. Everybody likes a simplifying abstraction, but not if it is slower or has unpredictable side-effects.
So it was refreshing to read a blog post by Greg Pfister (formerly of IBM), describing an HTM implementation in relative laymans terms. I first read Greg's book 'In Search of Clusters' around the same time I was working on XA-Core (~2000), so Greg has quite some background context. He does not pretend to fully comprehend the implementation, but he asks the right questions. Searching more widely, I came across a discussion of the forthcoming Intel 'Haswell' chip at LWN. The comments here give some insight into the implementation and implications. Hopefully we'll start to hear more about the physical properties of these mechanisms, their sweet spots and limitations.