On Thu, Aug 24, 2000 at 08:18:00PM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> yodaiken@fsmlabs.com wrote on 23.08.00 in <20000823172504.A733@hq.fsmlabs.com>:
> > 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.
i think you're misunderstanding pike's point. it is that you don't want
to have threads because processes are too heavyweight, rather you should
make processes less heavyweight. sharing VMs between processes is a more
generally useful feature and shouldn't be restrained to the notion of a
thread. needless to say, linux's clone() model is based heavily on pike's
insight and plan9's rfork() model.
-- Revolutions do not require corporate support. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 31 2000 - 21:00:14 EST