[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.

-bob


_______________________________________________
Stackless mailing list
Stackless at stackless.com
http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless



More information about the Stackless mailing list