Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:14:28 -0600 | | From | Victor Yodaiken <> | | Subject | Re: Alan Cox quote? (was: Re: accounting for threads) |
| |
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 09:52:39AM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote: > I think the general thrust of us ``anti-thread'' people is that a few > are fine, a lot is stupid, and the model encourages a lot. It's just
There is a huge academic research literature on how to prove that a large set of threads will all meet deadlines in a realtime system. Years ago I made a not-so-brilliant optimization to RTLinux scheduler that had an unanticipated side effect of only scheduling the first two threads created. Nobody noticed for months, because RT programmers know that more than 2 threads is almost always a design error. Not always though. (now we have regression tests so I could not make such an experiment again).
- 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/
|  |