On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 12:15:54AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> I think Larry's perspective is interesting and if the common cluster
> software gets working well enough I might even try it. But until a
> big SMP becomes commodity I don't see the point.
The real point is that multi threading screws up your kernel. All the Linux
hackers are going through the learning curve on threading and think I'm an
alarmist or a nut. After Linux works on a 64 way box, I suspect that the
majority of them will secretly admit that threading does screw up the kernel
but at that point it's far too late.
The current approach is a lot like western medicine. Wait until the
cancer shows up and then make an effort to get rid of it. My suggested
approach is to take steps to make sure the cancer never gets here in
the first place. It's proactive rather than reactive. And the reason
I harp on this is that I'm positive (and history supports me 100%)
that the reactive approach doesn't work, you'll be stuck with it,
there is no way to "fix" it other than starting over with a new kernel.
Then we get to repeat this whole discussion in 15 years with one of the
Linux veterans trying to explain to the NewOS guys that multi threading
really isn't as cool as it sounds and they should try this other approach.
-- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm - 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 23 2002 - 22:00:25 EST