"unless your code requires it". Yes my code contains synchonized blocks. I used also external libraries using other synchonized blocks. So i can replace synchonized blocks manually.
The coroutine runs code using mutex and shared resources. 2018-01-20 23:17 GMT+01:00 Torsten Curdt <tcu...@vafer.org>: > > this is a problem for me. > > > > I don't see the problem yet > > > > > My idea is to use many coroutines instead to use many threads because it > is > > more scalable. > > > *nod* > > > Consider i realize a scheduler in which i can push many coroutines. > > Pratically it is a coroutines pool inside the same thread. > > > > Yes, that is possible. The continuations are not bound to threads. > > > > > When a corotuines is blocked by a wait() instruction it is not necessary > to > > block the thread but it is sufficient to suspend it. > > When a corotuine is suspended , it is taken another coroutine ready to > be > > resumed. In this way the thread is never blocked ... and the global > > performance will be very hight. > > > > For this reason is important to instrument synchronized blocks. > > > > Sorry, but I don't see your point yet. > > It's been a while since I wrote that library but... > Frankly speaking I don't see the need for synchronization. > The state is handled per thread and it then creates a new continuation. > There is no mutation an no need for synchronization - unless your code > requires it. >
