From: Eric Wong Date: 2018-01-23T17:31:33+00:00 Subject: [ruby-core:85012] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#13618][Assigned] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid hsbt@ruby-lang.org wrote: > We discussed your proposal at last developer meeting (Dec 26, 2017) Awesome news. > - Name this "Thread", or something Thread-ish word than Fiber-ish So if we just use "Thread", then existing Thread becomes M:N? I will think about that... I have many use cases for native threads, too; but maybe they can be satisfied transparently. > - Matz doesn't have a strong opinion on the name but prefers 2 words (auto-fiber) than a coined word "Thriber." > > Next actions: > > * Give a thread-ish name OK, naming is hard :< LightThread? Maybe too long... Threadlet? Not Thread-ish, but "Task"(*) or "Tasklet" may be a candidate. This might take a while.... > * Lock and queue should work with auto-fiber? I can definitely make Queues work. I think ko1 was mildly against increasing use of Mutex. One safety feature I was thinking about was disabling auto-switching of Fibers while a Mutex is locked, even. > * Is explicit context switching onto auto-fiber possible? Yes, right now it's a subclass of Fiber so inherits transfer/resume/yield (*) Linux kernel uses "task" as generic term for threads, processes, and everything in-between (different flags describe level of sharing for clone(2)) Unsubscribe: