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: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 12:25:43 +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/45.2.0 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 X-Mozilla-News-Host: news://news.aioe.org Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:31002 Date: 2016-07-02T12:25:43+02:00 List-Id: On 2016-07-02 06:13, Randy Brukardt wrote: > Seriously, I'm thinking that thread scheduling overhead could be > reduced/eliminated by the task supervisor, and thus there's no real problem > with writing Ada tasks this way -- except of course that existing > implementations don't try to do this sort of optimization. There could be OS limitations on the number of threads a process may have. I was thinking about "user-scheduled" tasks, which are not scheduled at all. Some user task explicitly releases one task from the pool and gets control back when that task calls to an entry. The important point I believe is preemption. "User-scheduled" tasks would not be required to be preemptive. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de