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

<pierre.chambart@laposte.net <mailto:pierre.chambart@laposte.net>> 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