[lkml]   [1998]   [Jun]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Thread implementations...
Dean Gaudet writes:
> On Fri, 19 Jun 1998, Richard Gooch wrote:
> > On the other hand you could say that the UNIX semantics are fine and
> > are quite scalable, provided you use them sensibly. Some of these
> > "problems" are due to applications not being properly thought out in
> > the first place. If for example you have N threads each polling a
> > chunk of FDs, things can run well, provided you don't have *each*
> > thread polling *all* FDs. Of course, you want to use poll(2) rather
> > than select(2), but other than that the point stands.
> You may not be able to exploit the parallism available in the hardware
> unless you can "load balance" the descriptors well enough...

Use 10 threads. Seems to me that would provide reasonable load
balancing. And increasing that to 100 threads would be even better.
The aim is to ensure that, statistically, most threads will remain
sleeping for several clock ticks.
With a bit of extra work you could even slowly migrate consistently
active FDs to one or a few threads.



To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:43    [W:0.147 / U:5.328 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site