Re: [ANNOUNCE] Native POSIX Thread Library 0.1

From: Peter Waechtler (
Date: Mon Sep 23 2002 - 14:59:22 EST

Am Montag den, 23. September 2002, um 17:30, schrieb Larry McVoy:

>>> Instead of taking the traditional "we've screwed up the normal system
>>> primitives so we'll event new lightweight ones" try this:
>>> We depend on the system primitives to not be broken or slow.
>>> If that's a true statement, and in Linux it tends to be far more true
>>> than other operating systems, then there is no reason to have M:N.
>> No matter how fast you do context switch in and out of kernel and a
>> sched
>> to see what runs next, it can't be done as fast as it can be avoided.
> You are arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
> Sure, there are lotso benchmarks which show how fast user level threads
> can context switch amongst each other and it is always faster than going
> into the kernel. So what? What do you think causes a context switch in
> a threaded program? What? Could it be blocking on I/O? Like 99.999%
> of the time? And doesn't that mean you already went into the kernel to
> see if the I/O was ready? And doesn't that mean that in all the real
> world applications they are already doing all the work you are arguing
> to avoid?

Getting into kernel is not the same as a context switch.
Return EAGAIN or EWOULDBLOCK is definetly _not_ causing a context switch.

Is sys_getpid() causing a context switch? Unlikely
Do you know what blocking IO means? M:N is about to avoid blocking IO!

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 23 2002 - 22:00:39 EST