From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS4713 221.184.0.0/13 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from neon.ruby-lang.org (neon.ruby-lang.org [221.186.184.75]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A17D1F404 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 17:31:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from neon.ruby-lang.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by neon.ruby-lang.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2C02120A53; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 02:31:40 +0900 (JST) Received: from dcvr.yhbt.net (dcvr.yhbt.net [64.71.152.64]) by neon.ruby-lang.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04F47120A52 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 02:31:35 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost (dcvr.yhbt.net [127.0.0.1]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE4361F404; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 17:31:33 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 17:31:33 +0000 From: Eric Wong To: ruby-core@ruby-lang.org Message-ID: <20180123173133.GB14355@starla> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-ML-Name: ruby-core X-Mail-Count: 85012 Subject: [ruby-core:85012] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#13618][Assigned] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid X-BeenThere: ruby-core@ruby-lang.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Ruby developers List-Id: Ruby developers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ruby-core-bounces@ruby-lang.org Sender: "ruby-core" hsbt@ruby-lang.org wrote: > We discussed your proposal at last developer meeting (Dec 26, 2017) Awesome news. > - Name this "Thread", or something Thread-ish word than Fiber-ish So if we just use "Thread", then existing Thread becomes M:N? I will think about that... I have many use cases for native threads, too; but maybe they can be satisfied transparently. > - Matz doesn't have a strong opinion on the name but prefers 2 words (auto-fiber) than a coined word "Thriber." > > Next actions: > > * Give a thread-ish name OK, naming is hard :< LightThread? Maybe too long... Threadlet? Not Thread-ish, but "Task"(*) or "Tasklet" may be a candidate. This might take a while.... > * Lock and queue should work with auto-fiber? I can definitely make Queues work. I think ko1 was mildly against increasing use of Mutex. One safety feature I was thinking about was disabling auto-switching of Fibers while a Mutex is locked, even. > * Is explicit context switching onto auto-fiber possible? Yes, right now it's a subclass of Fiber so inherits transfer/resume/yield (*) Linux kernel uses "task" as generic term for threads, processes, and everything in-between (different flags describe level of sharing for clone(2))