[lkml]   [2002]   [Sep]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [ANNOUNCE] Native POSIX Thread Library 0.1

    On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Bill Davidsen wrote:

    > The programs which benefit from N:M are exactly those which don't behave
    > the way you describe. [...]

    90% of the programs that matter behave exactly like Larry has described.
    IO is the main source of blocking. Go and profile a busy webserver or
    mailserver or database server yourself if you dont believe it.

    > [...] Think of programs using locking to access shared memory, or other
    > fast resources which don't require a visit to the kernel. [...]

    oh - actually, such things are quite rare it turns out. And even if it
    happens, the 1:1 model is handling this perfectly fine via futexes, as
    long as the contention of the shared resource is light. Which it better be

    any application with heavy contention over some global shared resource is
    serializing itself already and has much bigger problems than that of the
    threading model ... Its performance will be bad both under M:N and 1:1
    models - think about it.

    so a threading abstraction must concentrate on what really matters:
    performing actual useful tasks - most of those tasks involve the use of
    some resource, block IO, network IO, user IO - each of them involve entry
    into the kernel - at which point the 1:1 design fits much better.

    (and all your followup arguments are void due to this basic


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:29    [W:0.020 / U:113.464 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site