[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: revivesa status 2008/07/09
On Jul 24, 2008, at 9:37 AM, Jason Thorpe wrote:
The right model for that is to use a continuation. Threads by their
nature have stacks and other resources that make them too
heavyweight to be appropriate for this type of processing.
No argument here. However, in practice there's no decent scheme
compiler to use for this, so people wind up doing it in C with threads
or state threads. In my experience, the cases where you need threads
and not continuations are rare, and a lot of extra work is needed when
doing threads that's completely unnecessary. Nevertheless, people
persist in programming in C because there are good compilers, and
continuations are... hard... in C.
Anyway, the more I think about this the more it seems to me that the
need being discussed is specialized, and therefore probably doesn't
need to be addressed by the default libc. It still seems like the
work Bill is doing is worthwhile in this case, if a consequence of it
is that someone who needs this functionality on their OLPC can choose
the SCHEDULER_ACTIVATIONS option in the kernel and build a libc that
will do what they want.
Main Index |
Thread Index |