Re: [MUD-Dev] Two threads forced to one CPU? (was: Collecting ideas for a MUD server...)

[Marc Bowden <ryumo#merit,edu>]

--On Thu, Dec 23, 1999 1:40 AM -0800 "Wesley W. Terpstra"
<terpstra#iota,dhs.org> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Wed, 22 Dec 1999 21:54:37, Rahul Sinha <rsinha#glue,umd.edu>
> wrote:
>> hear hear! keep in mind, multiple threads ought not seperate
>> themselves on seperate cpus due to cache coherency issues (depends
>> on your OS if they do) and either way, the only reason to have
>> threads is to eliminate wait for blocking operations.
> 
> What?! You're saying if I spawn two threads and having both work
> nonstop the OS won't put them on different CPUs?
> 

  Some might. With Windows NT it randomly assigns threads to a CPU
until one or the other fills up. Go fig.

> I thought this was the whole point to multi-threading?
> Please explain.
> 

  The point is that you can do two things and have them *look* like
they're happening at the same time.



_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev maillist  -  MUD-Dev#kanga,nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev