lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Jun]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: Alan Cox quote? (was: Re: accounting for threads)
    From
    Date
    >>>>> "Al" == Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu> writes:

    Al> On 20 Jun 2001, Jes Sorensen wrote:

    >> Not to mention how complex it is to get locking right in an
    >> efficient manner. Programming threads is not that much different
    >> from kernel SMP programming, except that in userland you get a core
    >> dump and retry, in the kernel you get an OOPS and an fsck and
    >> retry.

    Al> Arrgh. As long as we have that "SMP makes locking harder" myth
    Al> floating around we _will_ get problems. Kernel UP programming is
    Al> not different from SMP one. It is multithreaded. And amount of
    Al> genuine SMP bugs is very small compared to ones that had been
    Al> there on UP since way back. And yes, programming threads is the
    Al> same thing. No arguments here.

    Call it SMP or kernel threading, I don't really care, it's the same
    thing. My point is that in the kernel you must take threading/SMP into
    account when coding and yes it's not trivial to do it efficiently
    (though often fairly easy to do it inefficiently) and the same applies
    to userland threads. Userland threads are just not some chest of gold
    that just opens up a free path to paradise as most CS teachers seems
    to promote it as being.

    Jes
    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:55    [W:0.028 / U:0.004 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site