Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:27:57 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: threadlets as 'naive pool of threads', epoll, some measurements |
| |
* Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru> wrote:
> > > Enough, you say micro-thread design is superior - ok, that is your > > > point. > > > > note that threadlets are not 'micro-threads'. A threadlet is more of > > an 'optional thread' (as i mentioned it earlier): whenever it does > > anything that makes it distinct from a plain function call, it's > > converted into a separate thread by the kernel. Otherwise it behaves > > like a plain function call and returns. > > I know. > But it is rare case for the most situations, when things do not block, > so I called it micro-thread, since it spawns a new thread (get from > preallocated pool) for parallel processing.
ugh. Because 'it spawns a new thread from a preallocated pool' you are arbitrarily renaming threadlets to 'micro-threads'?? The kernel could be using a transparent thread pool for ordinary pthread recycling itself (and will possibly do so in the future) - that does not make them a micro-thread one iota. So please stop calling them micro-threads, threadlets are a distinctly separate concept ...
( And i guess you should know it perfectly well from my past mails in this thread that i dont like micro-thread concepts at all, so are you perhaps calling threadlets 'micro-threads' intentionally, just to force a predictably negative reaction from me? Maybe i should start renaming your code too and refer to kevents as 'kpoll'? That too makes absolutely zero sense. This is getting really silly. )
Ingo - 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/
| |