From: Xavier Noria <fxn@...>
Date: 2012-07-04T21:41:08+09:00
Subject: Re: Green threads in 1.9.* ?

--047d7b33cf6c283b4704c40058f1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Peter Zotov <whitequark@whitequark.org>wrote:

Ruby 1.9 uses kernel threads and does not have green threads.
> There is nothing like Erlang's lightweight processes in Ruby (or, for
> that matter, in most of the languages).


That is clear, but the definition of green thread depends on who schedules
them.

Is the GIL acting as a scheduler? Has MRI logic about what to lock next
therefore scheduling in practice *among the threads in its process*? Or is
my conjecture right that locking is mostly dumb and that ultimately the
kernel is the scheduler because the thread is native?

--047d7b33cf6c283b4704c40058f1
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Peter Zotov <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:whitequark@whitequark.org" target=3D"_blank">whitequark@whitequa=
rk.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<div><br><div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><block=
quote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc=
 solid;padding-left:1ex">


Ruby 1.9 uses kernel threads and does not have green threads.<br>
There is nothing like Erlang&#39;s lightweight processes in Ruby (or, for<b=
r>
that matter, in most of the languages).</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Tha=
t is clear, but the definition of green thread depends on who schedules the=
m.</div><div><br></div><div>Is the GIL acting as a scheduler? Has MRI logic=
 about what to lock next therefore scheduling in practice *among the thread=
s in its process*? Or is my conjecture right that locking is mostly dumb an=
d that ultimately the kernel is the scheduler because the thread is native?=
</div>


</div></div></div>

--047d7b33cf6c283b4704c40058f1--