--- Forwarded message ---
From: nigelsande...@btconnect.com
To: Dave Whipp - dave_wh...@yahoo.com
+nntp+browseruk+2dcf7cf254.dave_whipp#yahoo@spamgourmet.com, Dave
Whipp - d...@whipp.name
+nntp+browseruk+e66dbbe0cf.dave#whipp.n...@spamgourmet.com
Cc:
Subject: Re: Parallelism
--- Forwarded message ---
From: nigelsande...@btconnect.com
To: Dave Whipp - d...@whipp.name
+nntp+browseruk+e66dbbe0cf.dave#whipp.n...@spamgourmet.com
Cc:
Subject: Re: Parallelism and Concurrency was Re: Ideas for
aObject-Belongs-to-Thread (nntp: message 4 of 20) threading model
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 3:19 AM, nigelsande...@btconnect.com wrote:
The guts of the discussion has been kernel threading (and mutable shared
state) is necessary. The perception being that by using user-threading (on
a single core at a time), you avoid the need for and complexities of
locking
Em Ter, 2010-05-18 às 12:58 -0700, Alex Elsayed escreveu:
You are imposing a false dichotomy here. Neither 'green' threads nor kernel
threads preclude each other. In fact, it can be convincingly argued that they
work _best_ when combined. Please look at the GSoC proposal for hybrid
threading