Messages in this thread |  | | From | Peter Eriksson <> | Date | Fri, 9 Aug 1996 09:36:10 +0200 | Subject | Re: proc fs and shared pids |
| |
> On Wed, 7 Aug 1996 20:45:04 -0400, "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> > said: > > > From: peter@ifm.liu.se (Peter Eriksson) > > I see one problem with this 16bit "thread-ID" idea - it's not > > impossible one would need more than 65536 concurrent threads,=20 > > and what would one do then? Let's try to avoid stepping into the > > 640KB-is-more-than-anyone-would-ever-need trap again... [snip] > > I can think of bad design decisions that result in needing more than 64k > > threads; what I'd like to see is a legitimate example which doesn't > > involve a bad design decision. :-)
I don't have such an application here right now. However, I can imagine that in a couple of years from now there might very possible be one. (For example, a Financial Stock Exchange system, processing buy/sell/statistics calculations on a 64 processor UltraSPARC-2 multiprocessor server, while talking to other institutions all over the world :-)
> Yup. There are applications where you can imagine a great many > threads of context, but you can always multiplex application threads > onto a smaller number of kernel threads.
Sure, that is how (for example) Solaris 2 does it.
However.. - I thought that Linus idea was that there shouldn't be any separate application threads - Ie all threads should be kernel threads!
- Peter
|  |