* Re: [9fans] Re: Solaris thread scheaduling
@ 2000-08-18 20:53 dhog
2000-08-18 22:48 ` Boyd Roberts
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: dhog @ 2000-08-18 20:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
> Cooperative threads are just coroutines. They're `cooperative'
> because if the thread doesn't cooperate by calling the scheduler,
> no other thread ever get scheduled.
It's a bit like, "cooperate -- or else!".
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Re: Solaris thread scheaduling
2000-08-18 20:53 [9fans] Re: Solaris thread scheaduling dhog
@ 2000-08-18 22:48 ` Boyd Roberts
2000-08-19 6:23 ` Lucio De Re
2000-08-21 8:59 ` Douglas A. Gwyn
2 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Boyd Roberts @ 2000-08-18 22:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
From: <dhog@plan9.bell-labs.com>
> It's a bit like, "cooperate -- or else!".
yep dhog, you got it down. score?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Re: Solaris thread scheaduling
2000-08-18 20:53 [9fans] Re: Solaris thread scheaduling dhog
2000-08-18 22:48 ` Boyd Roberts
@ 2000-08-19 6:23 ` Lucio De Re
2000-08-21 8:59 ` Douglas A. Gwyn
2 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Lucio De Re @ 2000-08-19 6:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 04:53:56PM -0400, dhog@plan9.bell-labs.com wrote:
>
> > Cooperative threads are just coroutines. They're `cooperative'
> > because if the thread doesn't cooperate by calling the scheduler,
> > no other thread ever get scheduled.
>
> It's a bit like, "cooperate -- or else!".
No, it's more like "those who do not cooperate inherit the cpu".
++L
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Re: Solaris thread scheaduling
2000-08-18 20:53 [9fans] Re: Solaris thread scheaduling dhog
2000-08-18 22:48 ` Boyd Roberts
2000-08-19 6:23 ` Lucio De Re
@ 2000-08-21 8:59 ` Douglas A. Gwyn
2 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Douglas A. Gwyn @ 2000-08-21 8:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
> > Cooperative threads are just coroutines. They're `cooperative'
> > because if the thread doesn't cooperate by calling the scheduler,
> > no other thread ever get scheduled.
dhog@plan9.bell-labs.com wrote:
> It's a bit like, "cooperate -- or else!".
Well, if the tasks are decently coded, that can be a better
approach than preemptive scheduling where a task is interrupted
with things in an inconsistent state and all registers and status
flags have to be carefully preserved.
The operating systems in the Blit family of terminals used
cooperative scheduling.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Re: Solaris thread scheaduling
@ 2000-08-21 16:34 dhog
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: dhog @ 2000-08-21 16:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
> > > Cooperative threads are just coroutines. They're `cooperative'
> > > because if the thread doesn't cooperate by calling the scheduler,
> > > no other thread ever get scheduled.
> >
> > It's a bit like, "cooperate -- or else!".
>
> No, it's more like "those who do not cooperate inherit the cpu".
"The frustrated user will cut off their inheritance (yea, unto the 4th generation)".
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Re: Solaris thread scheaduling
[not found] ` <rob@plan9.bell-labs.com>
@ 2000-08-18 20:25 ` Tom Duff
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Tom Duff @ 2000-08-18 20:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
On Aug 18, 11:34am, rob pike wrote:
> Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: Solaris thread scheaduling
> What, we should use uncooperative threads?
> Adversarial threads? Anarchic threads?
>
> I guess I don't know the terminology. If POSIX threads
> are a good thing, perhaps I don't want to know what they're
> better than.
Cooperative threads are just coroutines. They're `cooperative'
because if the thread doesn't cooperate by calling the scheduler,
no other thread ever get scheduled.
--
Tom Duff. FUD in optima forma.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Re: Solaris thread scheaduling
@ 2000-08-18 15:34 rob pike
[not found] ` <rob@plan9.bell-labs.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: rob pike @ 2000-08-18 15:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
What, we should use uncooperative threads?
Adversarial threads? Anarchic threads?
I guess I don't know the terminology. If POSIX threads
are a good thing, perhaps I don't want to know what they're
better than.
-rob
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Re: Solaris thread scheaduling
2000-08-18 14:21 ` saroj
@ 2000-08-18 14:53 ` kilgore
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: kilgore @ 2000-08-18 14:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
> > Even Mac OS (X) will soon have POSIX kernel threads. Cooperative
> threading is dying
> > out from the world, finally.
i can hardly wait.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [9fans] Re: Solaris thread scheaduling
[not found] ` <399D2F7F.AD34496D@compaq.com>
@ 2000-08-18 14:21 ` saroj
2000-08-18 14:53 ` kilgore
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: saroj @ 2000-08-18 14:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
In article <399D2F7F.AD34496D@compaq.com>,
Dave Butenhof <David.Butenhof@compaq.com> wrote:
> Even Mac OS (X) will soon have POSIX kernel threads. Cooperative
threading is dying
> out from the world, finally.
If I remember correctly, the new Plan 9 operating system has
threads that do cooperative threading and you use lightweight
processes (rfork) to get time-slicing like regular processes.
- Saroj Mahapatra
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2000-08-21 16:34 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2000-08-18 20:53 [9fans] Re: Solaris thread scheaduling dhog
2000-08-18 22:48 ` Boyd Roberts
2000-08-19 6:23 ` Lucio De Re
2000-08-21 8:59 ` Douglas A. Gwyn
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2000-08-21 16:34 dhog
2000-08-18 15:34 rob pike
[not found] ` <rob@plan9.bell-labs.com>
2000-08-18 20:25 ` Tom Duff
[not found] <slrn8pp28u.nsf.phil+s3@shell3.ba.best.com>
[not found] ` <slrn8pp4sr.iu9.dave@svarozic.srce.hr>
[not found] ` <399D2F7F.AD34496D@compaq.com>
2000-08-18 14:21 ` saroj
2000-08-18 14:53 ` kilgore
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).