[Stackless] Stackless and Twisted [was: Stackless and Psyco]

Bob Ippolito bob at redivi.com
Wed Mar 3 02:08:07 CET 2004

On Mar 2, 2004, at 7:49 PM, Christian Tismer wrote:

> Christopher Armstrong wrote:
>> Christian Tismer wrote:
> ...
>>> Is it possible to spell out what's wrong/missing in Stackless?
>>> I'd really like to support Twisted; we need to share some 
>>> information.
>>> (I'm the specialist here, you are the specialist there...)
>> No no no, nothing wrong with stackless in the context of Twisted, at 
>> least as far as this problem is concerned. It's just a fundamental 
>> issue with context-switching when current, un-stacklessy code isn't 
>> expecting it. It's not a major issue, like it is with regular 
>> pre-emptive threading, but it can still be a concern in cases like I 
>> pointed out.
> But Stackless does no automatic scheduling at the moment.
> You mean the problem is that a function which knows what
> it calls usually can expect that exactly that and nothing else
> is run?
> And if some code decides to schedule(), this assumption is broke?
> So Twisted is doing something like "locking by call", in the sense
> that it is implicitly locked, since *now just this* function
> is able to run?
> This would of course mean to need more explicit locking of
> resources, if I understand this at all.

Yes, precisely. I haven't looked too much into it yet myself, but that 
could be a topic that I can take care of during the sprint.  Some of 
the work is already done (not by me) in the sandbox of Twisted CVS.


Stackless mailing list
Stackless at stackless.com

More information about the Stackless mailing list