[Vm-dev] [Pharo-project] Plan/discussion/communication around new object format

Igor Stasenko siguctua at gmail.com
Fri Jun 15 13:12:35 UTC 2012

On 15 June 2012 10:48, Andreas Raab <Andreas.Raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> Remember, what i have been told when i implemented a language-side
> scheduling, removing the
> need of VM to even know that is Semaphore?
> I been told *it is slow*. And this was the *only* argument against it,
> why it is found unacceptable.
> I think you might be misremembering. IIRC, the real argument was the risk (albeit expressed as performance concerns) of replacing VM-level scheduling by image-level scheduling without further ado. I don't recall that anyone had an objection to image-level scheduling as an option in addition to VM-level scheduling. In which case one can experiment with the implications and learn from the change in the environment without necessarily committing the production systems to an unproven feature.

But that's what i did, i made VM which remain compatible to existing
scheduling policy,
but adds a way to have a language-side scheduling, you simply
switching the scheduler object,
and voila, you got an image-side scheduling.
So, if you not sure about unproven part, you can keep running using a
"proven" one..

I am sure you know, that you cannot make an omelet without breaking an egg.
Needless to say, (and i'm not gonna to repeat it here), what benefits
providing a language-side scheduling
comparing to hardcoded semantics which you are forced to rely on.

Best regards,
Igor Stasenko.

More information about the Vm-dev mailing list