Not quite; with mutex based actors an interruption of the actor thread would cause that mutex (and thus that actor code) to remain locked until the original thr

Not quite; with mutex based actors an interruption of the actor thread would cause that mutex (and thus that actor code) to remain locked until the original thread resumes. No additional parallelism will allow that actor code to be "restarted" or "resumed" as the mutex owned by the interrupted thread is locked. This implementation relies heavily on restartable functions in order to allow another parallel thread to pick up and continue the work of an already in progress but otherwise interrupted actor. See page three of the (excellent) design document: https://github.com/eduard-permyakov/peredvizhnikov-engine/blob/master/docs/lockfree.pdf https://github.com/eduard-permyakov/peredvizhnikov-engine/bl... Thus while it might not strictly be "more parallel" (same number of actors), it does seem to be able to make better use of more parallelism for completing the same set of work.