[coyotos-dev] Activations

Christopher Nelson 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. :-)

-={C}=-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.coyotos.org/pipermail/coyotos-dev/attachments/20070522/a821e598/attachment.html 


More information about the coyotos-dev mailing list