Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 19 Jun 2001 14:11:16 -0700 | From | Jonathan Lundell <> | Subject | Re: Alan Cox quote? (was: Re: accounting for threads) |
| |
At 1:57 PM -0700 2001-06-19, David S. Miller wrote: >So my basic point is that I don't want people to read what you said >and believe "oh then the difference between threads vs. different >processes under Solaris is due to Sparc hw architecture reasons >instead of sw reasons" which simply isn't true.
Yeah, my observation wasn't central to the discussion, and the overhead of SPARC register windows is probably more relevant to user-level threads, not to mention small compared to IO.
It seems to me that the telling argument against threads has much more to do with the potential complexity of the resulting code than with after-all-minor performance considerations. If threads truly gave one an elegant, fool-proof way to implement otherwise complex applications, well, what are MIPS for, anyway?
I have a question, though. The SGI "state threads" mentioned earlier use threads in a controlled way with a state-machine programming model, which among other things has the potential to take advantage of multiple processors. How does one otherwise take advantage of MP with a state machine? Multiple processes and shared memory?
-- /Jonathan Lundell. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |