2002 2003 2004 2005 <2006> 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 | Index | 2002 2003 2004 2005 <2006> 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 |
<== Date ==> | <== Thread ==> |
---|
Subject: | Re: enhanced seq record |
From: | Luedeke Andreas <[email protected]> |
To: | Benjamin Franksen <[email protected]> |
Cc: | [email protected], [email protected] |
Date: | Mon, 30 Jan 2006 10:05:15 +0100 |
Benjamin Franksen wrote:
On Saturday 28 January 2006 00:52, Chestnut, Ronald P. wrote:If you do change the seq record (or make a new one), can you please change the behaviour for a "0" delay? Now a new thread is started for each (DOL/LNK) pair. If the delay is zero, can you "just do it" in the same thread? We found that for some big "explosions" (nested SEQs) the task switching dominates the processing time.[...] However, it /does/ request a callback for each group, regardless whetherthe delay is zero or not, and this can indeed cause unnecessary context switches. So, yes, I will change this. Adjacent link groups with zero delay will be processed in a synchronous manner i.e. w/o requesting a callback.Thanks for the hint.
If I remember correctly the "seq" record is 100% asynchronous.If you specify delays of "0", all DOLn links are supposed to be read at the same time.
How do you want to do this without a callback?(You need it to place the value into DOn when it's received and then write it to LNKn.)
But of course it would be sometimes useful to have a synchronous process chain, where the next link is processed after the the previous one completed and then the delay elapsed.
Regards Andreas