Re: SCO: "thread creation is about a thousand times faster than onnati

From: Kai Henningsen (
Date: Thu Aug 24 2000 - 13:18:00 EST wrote on 23.08.00 in <>:

> On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 10:54:57PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > The users do not distingush between kernel thread and thread. They just
> > want a thread and assume it is lightweight. Linux effectively gives them
> > only heavy threads currently, which they usually do not need.
> Linux processes are more lightweight than "threads" on many operating
> systems. As Rob Pike pointed out many years ago: a perceived need for
> "threads" means that processes are poorly designed.

*Only* if the perceived need comes from performance issues.

Threads are a rather nice programming abstraction *if used right*, and
processes (i.e. threads without shared memory) certainly aren't a
reasonable replacement, just as you wouldn't want to replace subroutines
with processes.

In *this* role, performance is a rather secondary issue (unless it's
abysmally bad).

Coroutines can do a lot of this, but as soon as you have hard-to-predict
scheduling, or want to block on system calls, you want real threads, not

MfG Kai
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 31 2000 - 21:00:14 EST