> Yes, I did this as a test and was impressed that the performance was comparable
> to what I get in NT. I expected the Unix domain sockets I was using to cost
> a lot more time than they did. Even so the code complexity was unwelcome.
This can be considered good or bad depending on design philosophy /
idiosyncrasy. Unix programmers consider the ability to pass pieces
of data in fast and reliable manner between processes without any special
userspace-visible locks or synchronization to be an advantage of this
model.
> Look at any GUI. They all multiplex the keyboard, mouse and window events
> so you read just one input source. To duplicate what I do with WaitForMultipleObjects
> in NT I would need 13 threads in just one of my processes. All of those threads
> would probably just grab a process wide lock as soon as they come unblocked
> to save me from analyzing all of the potential concurrency.
This is why X clients talk to X server over one file descriptor with
already multiplexed events, and can add other file descriptors to their
loops when necessary.
-- Alex---------------------------------------------------------------------- Excellent.. now give users the option to cut your hair you hippie! -- Anonymous Coward
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/