Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 13 May 1996 19:15:36 -0400 | From | "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <> | Subject | Re: mutex syscall patch, questions about clone and its possible bugs |
| |
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 08:28:44 -0500 From: Miguel de Icaza <miguel@roxanne.nuclecu.unam.mx>
I remember when at one time Chris Provenzano said something about people wanting one thousand threads in one application. The kernel can't cope with that number of threads very nicely, he proposes to use a number of kernel threads (ie, our clone() created threads) and then keep a pool of his userlevel threads to do the work.
Chris Provenzano thinks that a valid programming paradigm might require using a thousand threads in one application. But keep in mind that he's thread fanatic.
Sure, I could rewrite a program so that there was a separate thread for each key on the keyboard, to be woken up when the user typed that particular key. Most people don't do it now because it's horribly inefficient on most thread implementations, especially one that uses kernel threads. But just because you *can* do something like that using Chris's pthreads package doesn't mean that it's a sane thing to do!
- Ted
|  |