From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pierre.chambart@laposte.net>
Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104])
	by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 977927EE4B
	for <caml-list@sympa.inria.fr>; Tue,  1 Oct 2013 07:01:50 +0200 (CEST)
Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  pierre.chambart@laposte.net) identity=pra;
  client-ip=193.253.67.226;
  receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="pierre.chambart@laposte.net";
  x-sender="pierre.chambart@laposte.net";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: Pass (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: domain of
  pierre.chambart@laposte.net designates 193.253.67.226 as
  permitted sender) identity=mailfrom;
  client-ip=193.253.67.226;
  receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="pierre.chambart@laposte.net";
  x-sender="pierre.chambart@laposte.net";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1"
Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  postmaster@smtpout.laposte.net) identity=helo;
  client-ip=193.253.67.226;
  receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="pierre.chambart@laposte.net";
  x-sender="postmaster@smtpout.laposte.net";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AkkBAPdVSlLB/UPinGdsb2JhbABawhiCe4FLDgEBAQEBBg0JCRQogiUBAQV4ARALGAkWDwkDAgECAUUGDQEHAodvARIEsmMQijGPUQeEIgOeMo8G
X-IPAS-Result: AkkBAPdVSlLB/UPinGdsb2JhbABawhiCe4FLDgEBAQEBBg0JCRQogiUBAQV4ARALGAkWDwkDAgECAUUGDQEHAodvARIEsmMQijGPUQeEIgOeMo8G
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,1012,1371074400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="28629954"
Received: from smtpout1.laposte.net (HELO smtpout.laposte.net) ([193.253.67.226])
  by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 01 Oct 2013 07:01:49 +0200
Received: from [192.168.2.34] ([66.65.121.35])
	by mwinf8502-out with ME
	id Xh1n1m00D0lvKC203h1onx; Tue, 01 Oct 2013 07:01:49 +0200
Message-ID: <524A573B.4030903@laposte.net>
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 01:01:47 -0400
From: Pierre Chambart <pierre.chambart@laposte.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130821 Icedove/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Xavier Leroy <Xavier.Leroy@inria.fr>
CC: caml-list@inria.fr
References: <CABooLwPwdN+g4Aor4O=Dfm5+zmOnRqnaRcaN5BCHTW4s4gZoZQ@mail.gmail.com> <524941CC.1080906@inria.fr>
In-Reply-To: <524941CC.1080906@inria.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Thread behaviour

On 30/09/2013 05:18, Xavier Leroy wrote:
> On 2013-09-27 12:10, Tom Ridge wrote:
>> I have a little program which creates a thread, and then sits in a loop:
>> [...]
>> When I run the program I get the output:
>>
>> 1
>> 2
>>
>> and the program then sits in the loop.
> It all depends on the whim of the OS scheduler.  OCaml has no control
> over it.  And you shoudn't expect any kind of fairness from the OS
> scheduler, esp. Linux's, which gladly jettisons any pretense of
> fairness in the hope of getting better throughput.
Usualy, the scheduler is fair when you force all threads to run on the
same processor.
But I would still prefer the LWT way for doing message passing.
-- 
Pierre