On vrijdag, augustus 30, 2002, at 10:35 , Tim Peters wrote: > [Jack Jansen] >> On vrijdag, augustus 30, 2002, at 06:12 , Tim Peters wrote: > > Jack, I'm never on vrijdag -- vrijdag is illegal in the US <wink>. Oh? Didn't realize that, thought they hadn't gotten any further then outlawing rookdag and drinkdag yet. >> Some wild ideas: >> - Use an exponential (or linear?) backoff. If you attempt to >> switch and nothing happens you double the check interval, up to >> a maximum. If you do switch you reset to the minimum. > > On a pthreads system under 2.3, using semaphores, chances are > good it will > always switch. But unless you're trying to fake soft realtime, > it's a real > drag on performance to switch so often We can't out-guess > this, because it > depends on what the *app* wants. Most apps aren't trying to fake soft > realtime, so favoring less frequent switches is a good default. Agreed. But the main application I was thinking of are along the lines of one thread doing real computational work and the others doing GUI stuff or serving web-requests or some such. I.e. while busy you care about response for other threads, but you don't want to spend too many cycles on it. I remember seeing bad artefacts of having a large value for the check interval, such as bad responsiveness to control-C, but it could well be that this was MacPython-OS9 specific. > You need a model for what it is you're trying [...] I though you said you didn't have vrijdag? -- - Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@oratrix.com> http://www.cwi.nl/~jack - - If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma Goldman -
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4