Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 15 Jul 1999 13:11:59 -0400 | From | Donald Sharp <> | Subject | Re: kernel thread support - LWP's |
| |
On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 08:50:02AM -0700, Nate Tuck wrote: > At 12:31 AM 7/15/99 -0600, Larry McVoy wrote: > >Second, for those rare cases where they actually do cost too much, > >that's only on crappy operating systems. The last time I checked, Linux > >process context switches were faster than Solaris LWP context switches. > >So much for that argument. > > Larry, > > Since you've obviously talked to a lot of good people on this, I was > wondering if you could talk about the only issue I haven't heard you bring > up which is frequently brought up by the LWP/user-thread-scheduler folks. > What about kernel run-queue length? It seems that I've heard the argument > made that LWP's keep you from spending a long time in the kernel scheduler, > which I could see might actually be a good thing. >
I have never understood this arguement. With LWP's you have to spend time in 2 schedulers: The kernel's and the Thread libraries. I guess they might be able to claim that the thread libraries scheduler is much much faster than the kernel's scheduler, so you end up with a bonus.
donald
- 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/
| |