Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 20 Jun 2001 10:35:31 -0400 (EDT) | From | Mike Porter <> | Subject | Re: Alan Cox quote? (was: Re: accounting for threads) |
| |
> But that foregoes the point that the code is far more complex and harder to > make 'obviously correct', a concept that *does* translate well to userspace.
One point is that 'obviously correct' is much harder to 'prove' for threads (or processes with shared memory) than you might think. With a state machine, you can 'prove' that object accesses won't conflict much more easily. With a threaded or process based model, you have to spend considerable time thinking about multiple readers and writers and locking.
One metric I use to evaluate program complexity is how big of a headache I get when trying to prove something "correct". Multi-process or multi-threaded code hurts more than a well written state machine.
Mike
- 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/
|  |