nadiasvertex at gmail.com
Tue May 22 13:23:02 EDT 2007
> > It also seems like it could induce false sharing between independent
> > threads and processes, where delays in fault handling by other threads
> > or processes could cause those to propagate and slow down groups who's
> > processing is otherwise unrelated. Of course, this assumes that you
> > are using these handlers for various types of notification (like
> > memory mapping / etc.)
> Now that it is clearer how the fault handler works, do you still have
> this concern?
No. It seems that the only concern I would still have is that external
fault handlers seem very heavy in comparison to activation handlers.
Therefore, you are in a space/complexity trade-off. If these critical
paths that activation handlers are blocking are so systemically significant
that using external fault handlers will provide a boost sufficient to negate
the memory overhead - then I say go for it.
It's a shame, though. I was looking forward to using activations as
lightweight asynchronous event handlers. :-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the coyotos-dev