[#18121] [Ruby 1.8.7 - Bug #405] (Open) ssl.rb:31: [BUG] Bus Error — Anonymous <redmine@...>

Issue #405 has been reported by Anonymous.

14 messages 2008/08/04

[#18130] Re: New array methods cycle, choice, shuffle (plus bug in cycle) — Brian Candler <B.Candler@...>

> Seriously though... Array.first is a noun.

10 messages 2008/08/05

[#18319] NEW Command: absolute_path() -- — "C.E. Thornton" <admin@...>

Core,

14 messages 2008/08/16
[#18321] Re: NEW Command: absolute_path() -- — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/08/18

Hi,

[#18381] [Bug #496] DRb.start_service(nil) is very slow — Hongli Lai <redmine@...>

Bug #496: DRb.start_service(nil) is very slow

11 messages 2008/08/25

[ruby-core:18255] Re: result for mget [last:10 MIME/multipart] (1/1) (ruby-core ML)

From: SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
Date: 2008-08-13 02:35:11 UTC
List: ruby-core #18255
Hi,

Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
> I agree with this. I'm not sure if querying for the current priority
> is widely used, but I work on at least one project where it's
> necessary to set some intensive threads to a lower priorty to prevent
> them from gobbling up too much CPU from the main threads, and not
> having some way to reduce thread priority would be of noticeable
> impact on our code.

I have no idea to achieve your issue.

Seeing other environment:

- Python: there is no priority on Thread.
- Perl ithread: OS dependent priority.
   (not affect on most UNIX environment)
   (on Windows environment, we can use priority)
- C, C++'s native thread: ditto.

(Please point out if you find mistakes)


There are 2 options:

1. This is Ruby's good point, so we must support
    OS independent exact thread scheduler
    (with development/running cost).

2. We don't need such big mechanism on thread because
    other environments don't support it.

(optional-3: we should choose 1 or 2 on build/launch timing)


Any comments?
-- 
// SASADA Koichi at atdot dot net

In This Thread