> I never said that I didn't. I'm just taking issue with the choosen path
> which has been demonstrated to not work.
>
> "Let's scale Linux by multi threading"
>
> "Err, that really sucked for everyone who has tried it in the past,
> all the code paths got long and uniprocessor performance suffered"
>
> "Oh, but we won't do that, that would be bad".
>
> "Great, how about you measure the changes carefully and really show
> that?"
>
> "We don't need to measure the changes, we know we'll do it right".
Most of the threading changes have been things like 1 thread per cpu, which
would seem to scale up and down rather well to me ... could you illustrate
by pointing to an example of something that's changed in that area which
you think is bad? Yes, if Linux started 2000 kernel threads on a UP system,
that would obviously be bad.
M.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 28 2003 - 22:00:19 EST