On Sun, 6 Mar 1999, Andrew Ritchie wrote:
>>I was trying to figure out once - is there a minimum number of threads
>>mandated in the standard? i.e. that all implementations must support
>>at least 128 threads or something? I keep wondering if
>>one-thread-per-player, which has some very nice benefits, is worth the
>>performance cost. (The other end of the spectrum being a Squid-like
>>design of a single thread that never, ever blocks for any reason --
>>even asynch I/O)
>
>For a one-thread-per-player-system, wouldn't you have to make sure that
>global variables aren't being accessed at the same time by two or more
>different threads? That's what I was told, anyhow. So you'd need a flagging
>variable on each global variable (or even on playing structures, seeing as
>they can be accessed by different threads) ... kind of like a INUSE/FREE
>thing. This would be mighty troublesome, wouldn't you agree?
It's a trade-off. You can hide that extra locking so that it's basically a
non-issue for most code. The benefit of the thread-per-player is the other
simplifications you can do. Blocking reads for instance.
--
George Greer | CircleMUD Snippets
greerga@circlemud.org | http://mouse.van.m-l.org/snippets/
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
| http://qsilver.queensu.ca/~fletchra/Circle/list-faq.html |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/15/00 PST