[lkml]   [2007]   [Feb]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: threadlets as 'naive pool of threads', epoll, some measurements

* Evgeniy Polyakov <> wrote:

> > > Enough, you say micro-thread design is superior - ok, that is your
> > > point.
> >
> > note that threadlets are not 'micro-threads'. A threadlet is more of
> > an 'optional thread' (as i mentioned it earlier): whenever it does
> > anything that makes it distinct from a plain function call, it's
> > converted into a separate thread by the kernel. Otherwise it behaves
> > like a plain function call and returns.
> I know.
> But it is rare case for the most situations, when things do not block,
> so I called it micro-thread, since it spawns a new thread (get from
> preallocated pool) for parallel processing.

ugh. Because 'it spawns a new thread from a preallocated pool' you are
arbitrarily renaming threadlets to 'micro-threads'?? The kernel could be
using a transparent thread pool for ordinary pthread recycling itself
(and will possibly do so in the future) - that does not make them a
micro-thread one iota. So please stop calling them micro-threads,
threadlets are a distinctly separate concept ...

( And i guess you should know it perfectly well from my past mails in
this thread that i dont like micro-thread concepts at all, so are you
perhaps calling threadlets 'micro-threads' intentionally, just to
force a predictably negative reaction from me? Maybe i should start
renaming your code too and refer to kevents as 'kpoll'? That too makes
absolutely zero sense. This is getting really silly. )

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-02-27 09:39    [W:0.298 / U:3.904 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site