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 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:28:34 -0800
To: Lee Chin <email@example.com>
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 bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
-- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
Meet Singles http://corp.mail.com/lavalife
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 22:00:32 EST