Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 21 Dec 2009 10:17:54 +0100 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: workqueue thing |
| |
On Fri, Dec 18 2009, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > in addition, threads are cheap. Linux has no technical problem with > running 100's of kernel threads (if not 1000s); they cost basically a > task struct and a stack (2 pages) each and that's about it. making an > elaborate-and-thus-fragile design to save a few kernel threads is > likely a bad design direction...
One would hope not, since that is by no means outside of what you see on boxes today... Thousands. The fact that they are cheap, is not an argument against doing it right. Conceptually, I think the concurrency managed work queue pool is a much cleaner (and efficient) design.
-- Jens Axboe
| |