Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:43:45 -0400 (EDT) | From | Vladimir Dergachev <> | Subject | Re: Threads in linux. |
| |
On 1 Sep 1999, Nix wrote:
> Vladimir Dergachev <vdergach@math.upenn.edu> writes: > > > Linux kernel has a system call "clone" which does for threads what "fork" > > does for processes. > > ? No, it clones things. That's all. It clones processes and provides > finegrained control over the resources (VM, PPID, &c) to share when this > is done. > > Threads are not a distinct entity in Linux (and rightly so). > > > If you think about it the library is always faster than a system call - > > because you don't have to make a context switch. In windows (IMHO) the > > ? System calls do not necessarily involve context switches anyway. If > every system call switched process context the system would be slow as > anything due to cache thrashing. > > > In windows NT the kernel is called mach (it's a microkernel) > > *boggle* It's over 800K. Not very `micro'. > > Oh, and it's not Mach. > > > I've persistently heard this `NT has a microkernel' argument, and it > seems to me it's tosh. NT is heavily internally layered, sure, but > layering != microkernel. >
Ok:) Sorry !!! Next time I won't believe what I read and check the code..
Vladimir Dergachev
> -- > '- I can't believe my room doesn't have Ethernet! Why wasn't it wired > when the house was built? > - The house was built in 1576.' --- Alex Kamilewicz on the Oxford > breed of `conference American'. >
- 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/
| |