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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: RFC: Prototype for a user threading library in Ada Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 08:41:13 +0200 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Message-ID: References: <58b78af5-28d8-4029-8804-598b2b63013c@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: w/2xSGckQeJEFvqsQFNodA.user.gioia.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:30942 Date: 2016-06-26T08:41:13+02:00 List-Id: On 2016-06-26 05:09, Randy Brukardt wrote: > "Hadrien Grasland" wrote in message > news:f4c3e42a-1aa1-4667-83d7-de6f81a8fdd2@googlegroups.com... > .... > It seems to me that the problem is with the "typical" Ada implementation > more than with the expressiveness of features, when it comes to highly > parallel implementations. Mapping tasks directly to OS threads only works if > the number of tasks is small. So if it hurts when you do that, then DON'T DO > THAT!! :-) > > There's no reason for any particular mapping of Ada tasks to OS threads. Ah, but there is the reason. The OS can switch threads on I/O events. If Ada RTS could do this without mapping tasks to threads, fine. Apparently it cannot without imposing same or higher overhead OS threads have. Co-routines could offer something in between. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de