lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [May]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Mark Russinovich's reponse Was: [OT] Comments to WinNT Mag !! (fwd)
On Wed, 5 May 1999, Mark Christiansen wrote:

> 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:51    [W:0.796 / U:0.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site