Re: Re: stackless implementation (was Re: New stacklessproposal)
Christian Tismer <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lang.prothon.user |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Mark Hahn wrote: >>From: Christian Tismer > > >>Actually there are four, and I have to adjust the ranking: >> >>Pure OS: High memory. Low speed. C extensions OK. No pickling. >> >>Mixed: Medium memory. Medium speed. C extensions OK. >>No pickling. >> >>Pure interp.: Low memory. High speed. No C extensions. Pickling OK. >> >>Stack pooled: Low memory. Higher speed. Either C extensions >>or pickling. > > If "stack pooled" can do everything and is fasted and smallest why offer > anything else? Is there no disadvantage at all? There is the disadvantage that it doesn't exist, yet. I have to actually implement it, to see if the speed advantage is relevant to justify allocation of extra stacks. And a clear disadvantage is that you have to do assembly or alike. So, for Stackless I'm planning to make this a configurable option, since on some platforms, it may *always* be slower, if they have tons of registers to discard. > Can I trust you enough to say that we will only offer one type of > super-thread that does it all. :-) I'm pretty sure, but early marketing is never a good idea. > Can I add pre-emption and sleep() without harming the normal operation > of your threads? Yes. It can be that I need to restrict these extra stacks to a single tasklet, each, to keep the speed advantage. Will try to produce a prototype and do some timings. ciao - chris -- Christian Tismer :^) <mailto:[email protected]> Mission Impossible 5oftware : 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 89 09 53 34 home +49 30 802 86 56 mobile +49 173 24 18 776 PGP 0x57F3BF04 9064 F4E1 D754 C2FF 1619 305B C09C 5A3B 57F3 BF04 whom do you want to sponsor today? http://www.stackless.com/