From: Eric Wong Date: 2018-01-29T04:42:49+00:00 Subject: [ruby-core:85204] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#13618] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid sam.saffron@gmail.com wrote: > I am not a huge fan of the name threadlet, it just does not sound right. Is "Task" better? Or "CoThread" (like "coroutine"). Actually I don't like "CoThread" much, but "Task" is short and a somewhat popular name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_(computing) > What if a new construct is introduced: > > pool = ThreadPool.new(concurrency: 100, max_workers: 5 # optional) I really don't like that. It's too much up-front cost to having to declare a pool ahead-of-time. One thing I love about Fiber/Thread/fork is they can be used anywhere, even when deep inside libraries. That said, glibc has internal caching of thread stacks, and Ruby also caches Fiber stacks internally, but they're completely transparent to the user. There's also code for an internal Thread cache for Ruby, but it's broken with fork and disabled, atm Unsubscribe: