Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Threads across programming languages
Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 23:15:16 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <v116q4$4at1$1@dont-email.me>
References: <GIL-20240429161553@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
	<v0ogum$1rc5n$1@dont-email.me> <v0ovvl$1ur12$4@dont-email.me>
	<v0p06i$1uq6q$5@dont-email.me>
	<v0shti$2vrco$2@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
	<v0spsh$31ds4$3@dont-email.me>
	<v0stic$325kv$3@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
	<v0svtn$32o8h$1@dont-email.me>
	<v0t091$32qj6$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
	<v0u90h$3c1r5$4@dont-email.me> <v0v7rf$3lu04$1@dont-email.me>
	<v0v8u3$3m7rm$1@dont-email.me> <v10t0v$20cs$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 03 May 2024 01:15:16 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cfd0dd0a0e9abee8835016bed2d05754";
	logging-data="142241"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/0ufeKxZ+ZKY1Vf0Belc0J"
User-Agent: Pan/0.155 (Kherson; fc5a80b8)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WqunBRmxh/Z9y7W70SLj/8fCEUQ=
Bytes: 2506

On Thu, 2 May 2024 13:28:15 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

> On 5/1/2024 10:39 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 1 May 2024 22:20:47 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> 
>>> On 5/1/2024 1:34 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> Remember, we’re talking about maximizing I/O throughput here, so CPU
>>>> is not the bottleneck.
>>>
>>> It can be if your thread synchronization scheme is sub par.
>> 
>> Another reason to avoid threads.
> 
> Why? Believe it or not, there are ways to create _highly_ scalable
> thread synchronization schemes.

I’m sure there are. But none of that is relevant when the CPU isn’t the
bottleneck anyway.

>> So long as your async tasks have an await call somewhere in their main
>> loops, that should be sufficient to avoid most bottlenecks.
> 
> async tasks are using threads... No?

No. They are built on coroutines. Specifically, the “stackless” variety.

<https://gitlab.com/ldo/python_topics_notebooks/-/blob/master/Generators%20&%20Coroutines.ipynb?ref_type=heads>