At Tue, 4 Aug 2020 14:01:20 -0600, Robert D Kocisko wrote: > My only concern with this is whether that single thread might get mildly > starved compared to other racket threads given that it technically > represents hundreds of 'green threads' inside itself all implemented in C > whereas every other racket thread represents one green thread. Is there > any way to hint to the thread scheduler that a particular thread needs > higher scheduling priority than others?
If you can arrange for all other threads to be in a separate group, then all those threads together will have the same scheduling weight as your one thread. I think that's the only mechanism for adjusting weights, currently. > Also, in this scenario would unsafe-poller give any underlying > performance benefit compared to using unsafe-fd->evt and sync? Probably not, since the `unsafe-fd->sync` uses `unsafe-poller` fairly directly. Matthew -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/20200804141413.252%40sirmail.smtps.cs.utah.edu.
