1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 <2006> 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 | Index | 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 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 |
On Saturday 28 January 2006 00:52, Chestnut, Ronald P. wrote:If I remember correctly the "seq" record is 100% asynchronous.
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 whether
the 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.
Regards Andreas