From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] silent limit in thread(2) Channels which can corrupt the stack?
From: rog@vitanuova.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <20011121131031.8A3A8199EC@mail.cse.psu.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 13:24:18 +0000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 26a78fc0-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> IMHO, the limit is not bad, since it warns you of high contention on a
> channel, which could mean that you'd better split the work somehow.

you might want this...  it's often useful to use channels as a
serialisation mechanism.  in Limbo, i've often had potentially more
than 64 processes blocking on a channel.

i haven't had more than a brief look at the code, but what's the
reason threads blocked on a channel can't be linked together directly
rather than placed in a limited size array?

  rog.