Re: Thread implementations...

Larry McVoy (lm@bitmover.com)
Mon, 22 Jun 1998 08:44:43 -0700


: > If one really need to use threads, then, one of the following is true,
: > in my opinion:
: > - One likes complexity since one is stupid as most programmers.
: > - One's O/S handles processes as bloat entities.
: > - One has heared too much O/S 2 lovers.
: > - One is believing that MicroSoft-BASIC is multi-threaded.
:
: Wow! This is really arrogant!

Maybe, maybe not. I happen to agree with him, minus the inflammatory stuff.

: > The select() semantic has been a hack that has been very usefull for
: > implementing event-driven applications using a low number of fds, as
: > the X Server. Trying to use such a semantic to deal with thousands of
: > handles can only lead to performance problems. This is trivial.
:
: A lightweight userspace solution that uses a modest number of threads
: is cabable of giving us a fast and scalable mechanism for handling
: very large numbers of FDs. And it can do this without changing one
: line of kernel code.

So this is interesting. Can you either point towards a document or explain
why using threads would make your mechanism faster?

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu