Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Tue, 23 Jun 1998 11:05:25 +1000 | | From | Richard Gooch <> | | Subject | Re: Thread implementations... |
| |
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
|  |