ai-dev

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by ai-dev 5y ago

   > This is true for readiness-based IO (which, admittedly, most current async IO loops are using) Right, so if most async I/O frameworks use readiness-based IO (epoll, kqueue), then the context switch overhead is similar. So then mos
2. 2.▲
   by ai-dev 5y ago

   > But a million threads on one box imposes significant constraints on how active those threads can be. Wouldn't the same constraints be imposed on a million async tasks? What allows async tasks to be more active than threads? Is it
3. 3.▲
   by ai-dev 5y ago

   > Switching async tasks involves loading the new task from memory onto the stack. That's it. One of the points on the list was that if the context switch is due to I/O readiness, then there's more work for the async task t
4. 4.▲
   by ai-dev 5y ago

   I'm quire confused about the benefits of async I/O over a blocking thread pool. I can't reconcile the many claims I've read. Everyone does seem to agree that most people don't need async, but past that... - The ov