lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Jul]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: kernel thread support - LWP's
Date
From
: Are there plans in the near future to support proper LWP's in the Linux
: kernel ? By this I mean multiple threads of execution within the same
: process id, not multiple processes sharing the same VM, etc. Can I
: encourage whoever is considering doing this that it would be a very
: good thing to do ? :)

Sure you could if you had so much as a shred of data which supported
the idea that it would be a good thing to do. In a short discussion I
had with Linus about this a month or so ago, he pointed out something
that should have been obvious, that cloned processes which share VM
also share the page tables and hence the TLB resources. Why is that
important? Because it was the one remaining thing that I could see as
a legit argument for supporting LWPs. Given that that isn't an issue,
can you think of a single technical reason why LWP's would be better?

I'll warn you up front that I've chewed over this topic at length with
people like Steve Kleiman, the architect of the the Solaris threading
model and the guy that taught me much of what I know about operating
systems, and even he isn't convinced that Solaris model is worth it.
If the clone() model had been around, I'm 90% sure he would have gone
with that.

So do you have any supporting data which makes a case that LWP's would
be better than the current model? I'm willing to believe there is such
data, but at this point I'm at a loss as to what it could be.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:52    [W:0.098 / U:1.988 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site