From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <3687635846c800c4ec129e333b0c3f35@quanstro.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Channels and threads
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Wed,  7 Nov 2007 18:39:49 -0500
In-Reply-To: <509071940711071525t6459cf1ch3ea12c91ad48787c@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: eed1140a-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> On 11/7/07, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:
> 
> // wiring data to processors would make more sense.
> 
> is what's meant here "wiring (data+proc) to processors would make more sense"?

no, if you're using threads (procs), by definition mutiple actors are
chewing on the same data.  if performance matters enough to worry
about which processor does what, i would think your data set would be
large enough to be much bigger than the active code.  therefore, i
would worry about keeping the data set wired to a processor and not
worry about which procs are running where.

- erik