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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,7d2c8b4487ef2145 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: ohk@ultra.tfdt-o.nta.no (Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen FOU.TD/DELAB) Subject: Re: Ada versus Java - Tasking Date: 1997/01/20 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 211043341 references: <01bc03ee$594dc520$829d6482@joy.ericsson.se> organization: Telenor Online Public Access newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-01-20T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <5bvt6v$sik@mdnews.btv.ibm.com> pontius@btv.ibm.com (Dale Pontius) writes: In article <1997Jan19.122511.1@eisner>, kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) writes: > > Operating system developers have a much better chance to make the > scheduling interact with the hardware properly, so I think the better > choices are: > > 1) Rely on OS threading support, and wait for improvements. > > 2) Lobby the operating system provider for better support, > using all methods available, including examples of other > operating systems which do it better, either on the same > hardware or some other hardware. > 3) Adopt another thing from NT, fibers. Leave a thread to be defined as something that is scheduled by the kernel, but add a structure like NT fibers or user threads, that is scheduled in the user space. This doesn't, of course, drop pressure on the OS provider for making the very best thread switch possible. Dale Pontius (NOT speaking for IBM) This won't help if the user threads aren't effieciently implemented. HP-UX has POSIX threads implemented in user space, and they aren't significantly more lightweight than POSIX threads in the kernel. Has anyone measured the difference between fibers and threads or processes in NT?