Nicholas Vinen writes:
>
> On Sat, 25 Mar 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > > If you want to see this changes get the kernel changes in place.
> > > There are various patches floating around which combined will allow a
> > > correct and fast implementation. But they were not added.
> >
> > The problem he is seeing however appears unrelated to the fact posix
> > threads is a braindamaged pile of crap. Its because the scheduler penalises
> > across forks as part of its fairness approach. Ingo showed that was in
> > fact wrong and posted some algorithm changes for 2.3.9x
>
> Alan, if POSIX threads are a "braindamaged pile of crap" (not arguing
> but I do use threads quite heavily) what would you rather us use as
> threads in Linux? Or are you not happy with any current implementation?
> The described technique does seem rather hackish. I'm interested in
> finding out a better way of doing something akin to threads. Is this
> planned in a future kernel?
Just use clone(2) directly. That's what I do.
Regards,
Richard....
Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au
Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 31 2000 - 21:00:17 EST