A Thread for Every Thread?

Ashley Yakeley ashley@semantic.org
Tue, 18 Jun 2002 16:59:41 -0700

At 2002-06-18 08:17, Dean Herington wrote:

>Would it be feasible to support an alternative strategy for
>mapping Haskell threads onto OS threads, namely that the two sets are kept
>in one-to-one correspondence?

I was wondering the same thing...

At 2002-06-18 08:27, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:

>The current GHC model has the basic assumption that OS threads
>are inter-changeable.  One Haskell thread may be executed by one
>OS thread or by many; you just can't tell.
>There is a good reason for this: the current OS thread may block
>in some I/O call (getChar, say), and we don't want that to block 
>all Haskell threads.

Surely with a one-to-one correspondence, this wouldn't be an issue? The 
one (OS/Haskell) thread would correctly block, and the others wouldn't.

Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA