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=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,URI_HEX autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,b3258fa06e2efdf3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-05-02 04:21:15 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!freenix!deine.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!212.97.175.23!not-for-mail From: Jano Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Tasks unleashed Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 13:21:13 +0200 Message-ID: References: <5Ejsa.430589$OV.427578@rwcrnsc54> NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.97.175.23 X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1051874474 13951517 212.97.175.23 (16 [49872]) X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.50 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:36846 Date: 2003-05-02T13:21:13+02:00 List-Id: tmoran@acm.org dice... > >In any case, the memory thing forces to use pools of reusable tasks, > >it's my main and crucial conclusion. > > Have you considered a protected Buffer of work to do and a fixed pool of > tasks which queue on an entry waiting for the Buffer to have some work to > do (or instructions to quit)? Then you needn't create or destroy the > worker tasks. That's exactly what I'm doing :) but sometimes the "fixed" compromise bugs me. ITOH, normally is better to have a upper bound for things, I think. -- ------------------------- Jano 402450.at.cepsz.unizar.es -------------------------