Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Proposed changes to threading API
Re: Proposed changes to threading API
From: Daniel Stenberg <daniel_at_rockbox.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 12:34:49 +0200 (CEST)
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Jonathan Gordon wrote:
(This has nothing to do with Dan's original questions. I thought his
suggestions looked fine!)
> is there any reason why the thread has to stay on one core?
Simplicity? Why would a thread "move" between threads?
> And on the topic of threads, what about changing to prioritising
> threads? especially the audio thread.
Whoa! Why would we want that? And if so, how would it work?
> And lastly, put in a schedular so threads dont have to explicitly yield
> (maybe this will stop the problem where you have to reset if the ui thread
> crashes but audio/backlight still work?)
Gosh. Abandoning the cooperating multi-tasking of current Rockbox will open
all gates to hell and lead to no good. We'll need a bazillion locks, mutexes
and similar things and then still have to debug for thread-related problems
and dead-locks for many months/years ahead.
I'm strongly in favour of keeping our current simple threading system. KISS.
-- Daniel Stenberg -- http://www.rockbox.org/ -- http://daniel.haxx.se/Received on 2006-08-07