![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Larry McVoy wrote: > On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 08:55:39PM +0200, Peter Waechtler wrote: > > AIX and Irix deploy M:N - I guess for a good reason: it's more > > flexible and combine both approaches with easy runtime tuning if > > the app happens to run on SMP (the uncommon case). > > No, AIX and IRIX do it that way because their processes are so bloated > that it would be unthinkable to do a 1:1 model. And BSD? And Solaris? > Instead of taking the traditional "we've screwed up the normal system > primitives so we'll event new lightweight ones" try this: > > We depend on the system primitives to not be broken or slow. > > If that's a true statement, and in Linux it tends to be far more true > than other operating systems, then there is no reason to have M:N. No matter how fast you do context switch in and out of kernel and a sched to see what runs next, it can't be done as fast as it can be avoided. Being N:M doesn't mean all implementations must be faster, just that doing it all in user mode CAN be faster. Benchmarks are nice, I await results from a loaded production threaded DNS/mail/web/news/database server. Well, I guess production and 2.5 don't really go together, do they, but maybe some experimental site which could use 2.5 long enough to get numbers. If you could get a threaded database to run, that would be a good test of shared resources rather than a bunch of independent activities doing i/o. -- bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979. - 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 12:29 [W:0.908 / U:0.010 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||