Hi Edmond, On Sat, Mar 8, 2025, 19:18 Edmond Dantes <edmond...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This situation is solely due to the fact that the Scheduler contradicts of > Fiber. > > - The Scheduler expects to switch contexts as it sees fit. > - Fiber expects context switching to occur only between the > Fiber-parent and its child. > > > Can you please share a bit more details on how the Scheduler is implemented, to make sure that I understand why this contradiction exists? Also with some examples, if possible. Reading the RFC initially, I though that the Scheduler is using fibers for everything that runs. And that the Scheduler is the direct parent of all the fibers that are started using it. I understood that those fibers needs to be special ones and suspend with a "Promise-like" object and resume when that is resolved. You mean that when one of the fibers started by the Scheduler is starting other fibers they would usually await for them to finish, and that is a blocking operating that blocks also the Scheduler? In that sense, any long running blocking operation is not compatible with the Scheduler... If you can please explain a bit more with some more details and examples, it would be great. Thanks! -- Alex
