From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <473235F0.80107@gmail.com>
Date: Wed,  7 Nov 2007 15:02:24 -0700
From: don bailey <don.bailey@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070816)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Channels and threads
References: <13edbccfbea367d2454018035c47ad0c@quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <13edbccfbea367d2454018035c47ad0c@quanstro.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: ee29aeb8-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> channels (the libthread variety) may pass by reference or value.
> so passing by reference or value is orthagonal to the question
> of why channels.
> 
> for example, if you have a couple of i/o threads and one mux,
> the mux can wait for a message from one of the i/o threads
> that might say
> a) here's your data (8192 byte+overhead message), or
> b) your data is here (sizeof pointer+overhead message)
> 

Well, yeah, I get that. I think the question I need to
ask is "why use Channels at all?"

What is the benefit of using Channels when threads can't
be bound to a specific CPU in a multi-core system? Aren't
Channels just a wrapper for locking a mutex and setting
a variable or adding to a queue?

D


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHMjXuyWX0NBMJYAcRAhDLAJ9l4vEwsLOBPUorybgd+NXNUlBXBACdGaxj
kKd8TljZ7kXHc8vB/qKEHIg=
=Sec4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----