Awesome, I didn't know about thread groups. I'll check into that as an option. I appreciate all your help!
On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 2:14:17 PM UTC-6, Matthew Flatt wrote: > > 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/302e380d-6e4f-405c-b220-d7437900a6edo%40googlegroups.com.
