Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 30 Mar 2001 00:33:56 +0200 | From | "J . A . Magallon" <> | Subject | Re: linux scheduler limitations? |
| |
On 03.30 Fabio Riccardi wrote: > > Despite of all apparences this method performs beautifully on Linux, pthreads > are > actually slower in many cases, since you will incur some additional overhead > due > to thread synchronization and scheduling. >
It all depends on your app, as every parallel algorithm. In a web-ftp-whatever server, you do not need any synchro. You can start threads in free run and let them die alone.
> The problem is that beyond a certain number of processes the scheduler just > goes > bananas, or so it seems to me. > > Since Linux threads are mapped on processes, I don't think that (p)threads > woud > help in any way, unless it is the VM context switch overhead that is playing a > role here, which I wouldn't think is the case. >
You said, 'mapped'. AFAIK, that is the advantage, you can avoid the VM switch by sharing memory.
-- J.A. Magallon # Let the source mailto:jamagallon@able.es # be with you, Luke...
Linux werewolf 2.4.2-ac28 #1 SMP Thu Mar 29 16:41:17 CEST 2001 i686
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |