On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 6:22 AM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 <pidgeo...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On 5/20/2014 1:02 AM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > >> That is unlikely. The OS scheduler (I assume that will still exist), will >> take care of that problem. At the end, more work will be done which is all >> we're looking after. >> > > I'm not sure what you're trying to argue any more. When pointed out that > the notion of "hardwareConcurrency is a measure of the amount of > simultaneous work that can be done" is not a valid assumption, you say that > you should let the OS scheduler sort it out. Yet the entire reason you're > arguing to include it is that developers need to gauge the amount of > simultaneous work that can be done. > We're specifically talking about asymmetric systems here. Those systems will be extremely hard to optimize for. (Maybe the little CPU's should just be ignored?) How would a worker pool on such a system be better for the gaming example I listed earlier? > At this point, I have come to the conclusion that you are unwilling to > understand the objections to this feature, and I don't think it's worth my > time to try to keep explaining something to you that you look set on > implementing and shipping despite numerous objections. It would be good if you could respond to my questions from my previous email instead of saying that I'm unwilling to understand. _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
