Notice that the quoted concurrency definition has a self-contradiction: "several computations are executing simultaneously" is inconsistent with "preemptively time-shared threads on the same processor" since time-sharing means they are broken into parts that run consecutively, taking turns, and not simultaneously. In fact, I believe everybody means the latter, and therefore does not require strict simultaneity. What I think is meant is that the time-order of the computations as a whole is not required to be determinate: they can be mixed up in any way and the results will still be correct. (Some parts of them may be "pinned" with respect to other parts due to a communication, however.) In this respect, tasklets surely qualify as concurrent.
Larry Dickson On 5/12/09, Stephan Diehl <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Richard Tew wrote: > [...] > > I would say that the wikipedia entry isn't wrong as such, it is just > > vague, and misleading because of that. Tasklets run concurrently. > > I probably didn't have the right definition of 'concurrently'. > Wikipedia says about Concurrency: > """ > In computer science, concurrency is a property of systems in which > several computations are executing simultaneously, and potentially > interacting with each other. The computations may be executing on > multiple cores in the same chip, preemptively time-shared threads on the > same processor, or executed on physically separated processors. > """ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrency_(computer_science)) > > In that sense, it seems to be a bit of a stretch to claim that tasklets > run concurrently. But I'm probably nitpicking here :-) > > Cheers, Stephan > [...] > > > > Cheers, > > Richard. > > _______________________________________________ > Stackless mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless >
_______________________________________________ Stackless mailing list [email protected] http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless
