Re: Thread implementations...

Richard Gooch (Richard.Gooch@atnf.CSIRO.AU)
Tue, 23 Jun 1998 11:05:25 +1000


Larry McVoy writes:
> : > If one really need to use threads, then, one of the following is true,
> : > in my opinion:
> : > - One likes complexity since one is stupid as most programmers.
> : > - One's O/S handles processes as bloat entities.
> : > - One has heared too much O/S 2 lovers.
> : > - One is believing that MicroSoft-BASIC is multi-threaded.
> :
> : Wow! This is really arrogant!
>
> Maybe, maybe not. I happen to agree with him, minus the inflammatory stuff.

I agree that threads are over-used in some quarters. However, I don't
believe that my proposal (which uses threads) is bloatware.

> : > The select() semantic has been a hack that has been very usefull for
> : > implementing event-driven applications using a low number of fds, as
> : > the X Server. Trying to use such a semantic to deal with thousands of
> : > handles can only lead to performance problems. This is trivial.
> :
> : A lightweight userspace solution that uses a modest number of threads
> : is cabable of giving us a fast and scalable mechanism for handling
> : very large numbers of FDs. And it can do this without changing one
> : line of kernel code.
>
> So this is interesting. Can you either point towards a document or explain
> why using threads would make your mechanism faster?

http:/www.atnf.csiro.au/~rgooch/linux/docs/io-events.html

Regards,

Richard....

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