[Stackless] Explicit yield/break to Preemptive Stackless Loop
tismer at stackless.com
Thu Nov 9 16:46:55 CET 2006
Jeff Senn wrote:
> Well... The feature I am using is to run a scheduler in the non-main
> (non-first) thread. And I think that is very stable. As for
> running schedulers in many threads at the same time, I have not done
> much testing,
> but it seems like we would want that to work (even though the
> advantages are minimal due to the GIL).
> When this came up before I did some testing about running the scheduler
> in one thread and then starting up helper threads to feed channels
> and this also seemed to work well.
> So... I'm with Christian in not being *sure* that it will work, but
> also I see no reason why it shouldn't in theory. I guess I propose
> we go ahead as if it should work, and start fixing "bugs" and see
> how hard it is... but we will definitely need Christian's expertise
> to help...
Well the point is that I'm not sure if this is well designed.
It was meant as a fall-back primarily, when things are going
to block. In a sense that was a compatibility decision.
But if you think the concept makes sense, let's go fot it.
ciao - chris
Christian Tismer :^) <mailto:tismer at stackless.com>
tismerysoft GmbH : Have a break! Take a ride on Python's
Johannes-Niemeyer-Weg 9A : *Starship* http://starship.python.net/
14109 Berlin : PGP key -> http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/
work +49 30 802 86 56 mobile +49 173 24 18 776 fax +49 30 80 90 57 05
PGP 0x57F3BF04 9064 F4E1 D754 C2FF 1619 305B C09C 5A3B 57F3 BF04
whom do you want to sponsor today? http://www.stackless.com/
Stackless mailing list
Stackless at stackless.com
More information about the Stackless