From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,6f24e26ea2e03c4
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Threadpool with priority version 1.1 ...
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: <21e6697e-fd7c-4c5e-93dc-8d894449b5e6@f8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
 <ff3671a8-cf19-4cee-8b71-305bb6b1e9c1@l25g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
 <4ba9e189$0$6886$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <1id5xnuz0x892$.1odbic5ppiv07.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4baa27f2$0$6770$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <Xns9D4580FB5667EWarrensBlatherings@188.40.43.245>
 <7794a413-34e9-4340-abcc-a6568246fc38@h18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>
 <Xns9D4689576CA93WarrensBlatherings@188.40.43.213>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:19:54 +0100
Message-ID: <1rn39ttn5pon9$.11n683q5t6itu.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Mar 2010 09:20:14 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 7787f7ff.newsspool2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=YR?A;G<SF;X@@RW1FjIB5SA9EHlD;3YcR4Fo<]lROoRQ8kF<OcfhCO[9a;NgdPjLf[[6LHn;2LCV^b_MXahC5e9_8[5V1<06H:]Ln76hn1HODQ
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:10747
Date: 2010-03-26T09:20:14+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:30:05 +0000 (UTC), Warren wrote:

> Maciej Sobczak expounded in news:7794a413-34e9-4340-abcc-a6568246fc38
> @h18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com:
> 
>> On 24 Mar, 17:40, Warren <ve3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Another barrier I see to this is the high cost of
>>> starting a new thread and stack space allocation.
>> 
>>> Somehow you gotta make thread startup and shutdown
>>> cheaper.
>> 
>> Why?
>> 
>> The problem of startup/shutdown cost and how many cores you have are
>> completely orthogonal.
>> I see no problem in starting N threads at the initialization time, use
>> them throughout the application lifetime and then shut down at the end
>> (or never)...
> 
> I forgot to mention that the disadvantage of this approach is that
> you have to "pre-allocate" stack space for each thread (whether
> by default amount or by a specific designed amount).

BTW, if this approach worked for an application, it should also do for the
OS, e.g. why not to start all threads for all not yet running processes
upon booting? If that worked, the effective observed startup time of a
thread would be 0, and thus there would be nothing to care about. 

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de