/me backs away... quickly...
On 07/08/06, Daniel Stenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Jonathan Gordon wrote:
(This has nothing to do with Dan's original questions. I thought his
suggestions looked fine!)
> is there any reason why the thread has to stay on one core?
Simplicity? Why would a thread "move" between cores?
couldnt you have a problem where one core could be asleep and the
other core be thrashing away @ 100% ?
> And on the topic of threads, what about changing to prioritising
> threads? especially the audio thread.
Whoa! Why would we want that? And if so, how would it work?
> And lastly, put in a schedular so threads dont have to explicitly yield
> (maybe this will stop the problem where you have to reset if the ui thread
> crashes but audio/backlight still work?)
Gosh. Abandoning the cooperating multi-tasking of current Rockbox will open
all gates to hell and lead to no good. We'll need a bazillion locks, mutexes
and similar things and then still have to debug for thread-related problems
and dead-locks for many months/years ahead.
I'm strongly in favour of keeping our current simple threading system. KISS.
--
Daniel Stenberg -- http://www.rockbox.org/ -- http://daniel.haxx.se/
