Re: [9fans] Re: Solaris thread scheaduling

Re: [9fans] Re: Solaris thread scheaduling

[dhog]

> 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!".

Re: [9fans] Re: Solaris thread scheaduling

[Boyd Roberts]

From: <dhog@plan9.bell-labs.com>

> It's a bit like, "cooperate -- or else!".

yep dhog, you got it down.  score?

Re: [9fans] Re: Solaris thread scheaduling

[Lucio De Re]

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

Re: [9fans] Re: Solaris thread scheaduling

[Douglas A. Gwyn]

> > 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.

Re: [9fans] Re: Solaris thread scheaduling

[dhog]

> > > 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)".

Re: [9fans] Re: Solaris thread scheaduling

[rob pike]

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

Re: [9fans] Re: Solaris thread scheaduling

[Tom Duff]

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.

[9fans] Re: Solaris thread scheaduling

[saroj]

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.

Re: [9fans] Re: Solaris thread scheaduling

[kilgore]

> > Even Mac OS (X) will soon have POSIX kernel threads. Cooperative
> threading is dying
> > out from the world, finally.

i can hardly wait.