Re: Thread feature missing

From: skaller (skaller@maxtal.com.au)
Date: Mon Feb 21 2000 - 21:38:28 MET

  • Next message: skaller: "Re: Portability of applications written in OCAML"

    Xavier Leroy wrote:

    > Again, I'd argue that a design that calls for thousands of threads is
    > broken. See the periodic and lively discussions on
    > comp.programming.threads on this topic.

    I have an application that _requires_ thousands of
    threads of control. It has nothing to do with the 'design'.
    Of course, the threads spend most of the time doing nothing,
    and the current implementation uses callbacks not hardware
    threads. However, programming in this environment directly
    is bad; the programmer wants to write threads.

    I was thinking of using the bytecode interpreter threads to
    implement this. Is this not feasible? [Hardware threads are
    too slow, I need to create 500 threads per second, with
    a life of about 5 mins, which means about 20000 active threads:
    the overhead of 4K is per thread is small, only ~80Meg]

    -- 
    John (Max) Skaller, mailto:skaller@maxtal.com.au
    10/1 Toxteth Rd Glebe NSW 2037 Australia voice: 61-2-9660-0850
    checkout Vyper http://Vyper.sourceforge.net
    download Interscript http://Interscript.sourceforge.net
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 22 2000 - 11:50:25 MET