From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Tom Duff" <td@pixar.com>
Message-Id: <10008181325.ZM330635@marvin>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 13:25:55 -0700
In-Reply-To: "rob pike" <rob@plan9.bell-labs.com>
        "Re: [9fans] Re: Solaris thread scheaduling" (Aug 18, 11:34am)
References: <200008181534.LAA10675@cse.psu.edu>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: Solaris thread scheaduling
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Topicbox-Message-UUID: fcb9f960-eac8-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

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.