[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: debate on 700 threads vs asynchronous code
On Sat, 25 Jan 2003, Matti Aarnio wrote:

| On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 04:53:46PM -0600, Corey Minyard wrote:
| ...
| > I would disagree. One thread per connection is easier to conceptually
| > understand. In my experience, an event-driven model (which is what you
| > end up with if you use one or a few threads) is actually easier to
| > correctly implement and it tends to make your code more modular and
| > portable.
| An old thing from early annals of computer science (I browsed Knuth's
| "The Art" again..) is called Coroutine.
| Gives you "one thread per connection" programming model, but without
| actual multiple scheduling threads in the kernel side.
| Simplest coroutine implementations are truly simple.. Pagefull of C.
| Knuth shows it with very few MIX (assembly) instructions.
| Throwing in non-blocking socket/filedescriptor access, and in event
| of "EAGAIN", coroutine-yielding to some other coroutine, does complicate
| things, naturally.
| Good coder finds balance in between various methods, possibly uses
| both coroutine "userspace threads", and actual kernel threads.
| Doing coroutine library all in portable C (by means of setjmp()/longjmp())
| is possible, but not very efficient. A bit of assembly helps a lot.
| > -Corey
| /Matti Aarnio
| -

Davide Libenzi (epoll) likes and discusses coroutines on one of his
web pages:
(search for /coroutine/)


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:0.027 / U:1.972 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site