Oh yes! Thanks. On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Francois Berenger wrote: > On 10/2/13 7:37 PM, Wojciech Meyer wrote: > >> Agreed here, but it does not preclude of using very lightweight >> alternative based on system threads like parmap >> > > Just for the record, Parmap is fork-based, not thread-based. > > > or functory for the > >> parts have a high degree of parallerism. (and of course only if your >> program allows to do this) >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 6:01 AM, Pierre Chambart >> >> >> wrote: >> >> 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 >> >> -- >> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives: >> https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/**arc/caml-list >> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/**ocaml_beginners >> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-**bugs >> >> >> > > -- > Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives: > https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/**arc/caml-list > Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/**ocaml_beginners > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-**bugs >