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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/20200804141413.252%40sirmail.smtps.cs.utah.edu.
