[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: debate on 700 threads vs asynchronous code
Thanks for the rpely... my question was more so, with setcontext and swapcontext, I will still be messing with the data cache right?

In otherwords, as long as I have an async system with out setcontext, I know I am good... but with it, havent I degraded to a threaded environment?

----- Original Message -----
From: Larry McVoy <>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:28:34 -0800
To: Lee Chin <>
Subject: Re: debate on 700 threads vs asynchronous code

> > b) Write an asycnhrounous system with only 2 or three threads where I manage the connections and stack (via setcontext swapcontext etc), which is progromatically a little harder
> >
> > Which way will yeild me better performance, considerng both approaches are implemented optimally?
> If this is a serious question, an async system will by definition do better.
> You have either 700 stacks screwing up the data cache or 2-3 stacks nicely
> fitting in the data cache. Ditto for instruction cache, etc.
> --
> ---
> Larry McVoy lm at

Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at

Meet Singles

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 13:32    [W:0.041 / U:4.916 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site