Re: mmap() versus read()

Thomas Heide Clausen (voop@innocent.com)
Wed, 11 Mar 1998 01:31:43 +0100 (CET)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On 11-Mar-98 Perry Harrington wrote:

[ Bandwidth saving SNIP imposed ]

> is that multiple threads are scheduled upone a single LWP. In
> traditional
> Solaris, it allocates LWPs sparsely. The only reason to do a
> 1:1 binding,
> or specify a binding, is that LWPs are the entities block on
> system calls.
> As long as you're not calling any calls that could block, LWPs
> can efficiently
> schedule threads. This is advantageous in that thread
> creation is REALLY
> inexpensive, because it doesn't create a new LWP every time.
> I think that
> this is the secret to an appropriate thread implmentation
> thats "lightweight".

[ SNIP again.... ]

> Robust threading is a prime requirement for mission
> critical programs
> that would otherwise occupy a Sparc...

For your information: Solaris pukes in processes with more than
about 20000 concurrently active threads (I can repeatidly on a
Enterprise 2 with 1GB ram get it to puke on thread no. 14287).
Haven't figured out why yet, though....but it would be cool
if the Linux version didn't have such constraints....

- --thomas

(ps: anyone has a clue or similar experiences?)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBNQXbBMQLb2bL5bWVAQFTWQP9Hj0QGQHgwH0pBdCXTSeKDqhcg41uxidS
nZ2cR9HZBa9Pc9zjOKL8XFJi6HEPY0hbhwMfYvqRjoV8f0cumFa2i+1ypowUQ9B/
UabQkpT7VbIcrpTR9l1w9dbbRuxufWl9dLDOc2teTpEsZRysTx8kY+gTpFPh1z8E
s8O248gMMPY=
=iHv6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu