[squeak-dev] Are Squeak processes pre-emptive?

Randal L. Schwartz merlyn at stonehenge.com
Wed Apr 14 21:56:27 UTC 2010

>>>>> "Chris" == Chris Muller <ma.chris.m at gmail.com> writes:

Chris> I agree with Eliot about the merit of the approach where, when one
Chris> approach permits the other so that, effectively, both are available at
Chris> the image, but the other approach does not, that there is merit in the
Chris> approach that provides choice up in the image-level.  Given my limited
Chris> experience, however, I still cannot see a use-case where such
Chris> fine-grained control is useful, so "bug" is a stronger word than I
Chris> would know to use at this point..

It would be nice to presume that if I'm running, I'll stay running,
interrupted only by either a higher priority process, or me saying

So, even though the current Squeak behavior delivers a cycling of
same-priority jobs when higher-priority jobs interrupt regularly, there
are clearly other ways to do that, and probably more sensible to *not*
do this rotation.

After all, the higher priority job could always just force a cooperating
job to yield if needed.

Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn at stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list