lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Aug]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: SCO: "thread creation is about a thousand times faster than onnati
yodaiken@fsmlabs.com  wrote on 23.08.00 in <20000823172504.A733@hq.fsmlabs.com>:

> On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 10:54:57PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > The users do not distingush between kernel thread and thread. They just
> > want a thread and assume it is lightweight. Linux effectively gives them
> > only heavy threads currently, which they usually do not need.
>
> Linux processes are more lightweight than "threads" on many operating
> systems. As Rob Pike pointed out many years ago: a perceived need for
> "threads" means that processes are poorly designed.

*Only* if the perceived need comes from performance issues.

Threads are a rather nice programming abstraction *if used right*, and
processes (i.e. threads without shared memory) certainly aren't a
reasonable replacement, just as you wouldn't want to replace subroutines
with processes.

In *this* role, performance is a rather secondary issue (unless it's
abysmally bad).

Coroutines can do a lot of this, but as soon as you have hard-to-predict
scheduling, or want to block on system calls, you want real threads, not
coroutines.

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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:38    [W:0.149 / U:20.716 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site