Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by michaelsbradley | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

michaelsbradley·

For what kinds of applications would one favor this over, say, the coroutines approach of libdill?

http://libdill.org/tutorial.html

See, in particular, Step 6 of the tutorial.

View on HN

In libdill approach, you are probably limited to only multiplex connections over multiple kernel threads. And when a connection is accepted over a kernel thread it has to perform all further instructions over that kernel thread. So it gives you a bit of control over which cores to be utilized but after that you do not have control over what part of the code should be executed on each core.

Using uThreads you can decide what part of the code should be executed over each kernel thread and, if taskset is used, which core to execute your code. You can do this by creating Clusters and using migration or uThread creating in runtime. Thus you can decide which thread is used to multiplex connections and which one is used to run CPU bound code in addition to having a thread pool for example to do the disk IO asynchronously. Ultimately, one can create a SEDA[1] like architecture using uTrheads. Also you can always use uThread as a single threaded application.

------------------------------------------

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staged_event-driven_architectu...

First time I've heard of SEDA, though I've been aware of the concerns/concepts it addresses, in various forms, for some time.

Any thoughts on Welsh's Retrospective on SEDA?

http://matt-welsh.blogspot.com/2010/07/retrospective-on-seda...

I have seen this before. Those are very good points, and I am trying to move this library towards supporting a SEDA type architecture with dynamic control and auto tuning runtime parameters.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com