[#84867] [Ruby trunk Bug#14357] thread_safe tests suite segfaults — v.ondruch@...

Issue #14357 has been reported by vo.x (Vit Ondruch).

11 messages 2018/01/15
[#85364] Re: [Ruby trunk Bug#14357] thread_safe tests suite segfaults — Eric Wong <normalperson@...> 2018/02/03

[email protected] wrote:

[#84980] [Ruby trunk Feature#13618][Assigned] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid — hsbt@...

Issue #13618 has been updated by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA).

10 messages 2018/01/23
[#85012] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#13618][Assigned] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid — Eric Wong <normalperson@...> 2018/01/23

[email protected] wrote:

[ruby-core:85204] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#13618] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid

From: Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
Date: 2018-01-29 04:42:49 UTC
List: ruby-core #85204
[email protected] wrote:
> I am not a huge fan of the name threadlet, it just does not sound right. 

Is "Task" better?   Or "CoThread" (like "coroutine").
Actually I don't like "CoThread" much, but "Task" is
short and a somewhat popular name:

	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_(computing)

> What if a new construct is introduced:
> 
> pool = ThreadPool.new(concurrency: 100, max_workers: 5 # optional)

I really don't like that.  It's too much up-front cost to having
to declare a pool ahead-of-time.  One thing I love about
Fiber/Thread/fork is they can be used anywhere, even when deep
inside libraries.

That said, glibc has internal caching of thread stacks, and Ruby
also caches Fiber stacks internally, but they're completely
transparent to the user.  There's also code for an internal
Thread cache for Ruby, but it's broken with fork and disabled, atm

Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>

In This Thread

Prev Next