From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id SAA05186 for caml-redistribution@pauillac.inria.fr; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 18:38:02 +0100 (MET)
Resent-Message-Id: <200003021738.SAA05186@pauillac.inria.fr>
Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA13884 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 21:02:10 +0100 (MET)
Received: from tequila.cs.yale.edu (tequila.cs.yale.edu [128.36.229.152])
	by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA04654
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 21:02:08 +0100 (MET)
Received: from tequila.cs.yale.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by tequila.cs.yale.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA01794
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 15:02:07 -0500
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Sender: monnier@rum.cs.yale.edu
From: "Stefan Monnier" <monnier+lists/caml/news/@tequila.cs.yale.edu>
Newsgroups: lists.caml
Subject: Re: Interpreter vs hardware threads
References: <14518.34203.741447.637489@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <38BC93FC.65E3ED43@in.ot.com.au>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0804 (Gnus v5.8.4) Emacs/21.0.90
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Path: rum.cs.yale.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: rum.cs.yale.edu
Message-ID: <38bd773a@tequila.cs.yale.edu>
Date: 1 Mar 2000 15:02:02 -0500
X-Trace: 1 Mar 2000 15:02:02 -0500, rum.cs.yale.edu
Resent-From: weis@pauillac.inria.fr
Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 18:38:02 +0100
Resent-To: caml-redistribution@pauillac.inria.fr

>>>>> "Max" == Max Skaller <maxs@in.ot.com.au> writes:
> Asume LOTS of threads (thousands).

(insert-file "many-threads-bad-design")

> [Hardware threads are not fast enough]

[ I assume you mean OS threads, since hardware-supported threads
  are not very common. ]

I guess it depends on the OS and the pthreads implementation, but
it seems that they are usually pretty fast (i.e. fast enough that
people more or less stopped trying to make them faster).


        Stefan