Run one worker on main thread #375
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
edwardalee
approved these changes
Mar 1, 2024
|
I was going to wait for #344 to get merged first, but since these PRs are relatively independent I'll just rebase these changes. |
Co-authored-by: Edward A. Lee <[email protected]>
|
Replaced by #437 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Followup to #344
On embedded platforms, we have a very limited number of threads (i.e. just two on the rp2040). Therefore, we would like the main thread to run a worker, rather than just sitting idle while other threads run workers. This PR proposes the simplest way of doing so.
One alternate approach is to make a list of threads, and a function that runs them all at once (essentially separating out the fork/join logic). I think it would look cleaner, but would involve a significant amount of extra code to create a "thread list" type. Since this "thread list" type would only be used once, I'm not sure if its worth the tradeoff.
Open to any other approaches as well.