Re: [Chicken-users] How to avoid busy waiting when using tcp-accept and threads?

[felix]

Joerg F. Wittenberger wrote:
> To me it looks as if there is a glitch in the scheduler code.  While
> you code sits busy wainting, the scheduler would do the same, if there
> where only blocked threads.

Yes, but the scheduler will *loop* waiting for threads to become
available (for example, because of timeout).

(But I don't claim the scheduler to be error-free, of course)

> Maybe I'm missing something.  Do I?  Otherwise I'd suggest that
> select(2) should be called with a non-zero timeout value, if there is
> no thread to ready to run.  The timeout value should be exactly until
> the next real time event (threads-sleep!) is due, which then should be
> delivered.

There is no exact time-slice, I'm afraid. The interrupt checks inserted
into the code may not be distributed evenly among the compiled code.
We can perhaps use an approximate value, though.

Or we can make this user-configurable.

> Did anybody get any multithreaded server code already running with
> tcp.scm?  I'd appreciate an example.

Well, the http server (and the "server" script) are multithreaded.


cheers,
felix