Subject: RE: NetBSD is not Linux
To: 'firstname.lastname@example.org' <email@example.com>
From: ali \(Anders Lindgren\) <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/12/2001 01:20:02
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 email@example.com wrote:
> > >> You can of course create more than one.
> > >and each thread creates new process.
> > Perhaps but they all share the same memory space (no IPC required for
> > trivial tasks)so what's the problem exactly ?
> that you can't have more than 4090 processes in linux. and other that
> linux handles lots of processes terribly slow.
This is kind of an interesting issue. People often put forward that Linux
"kernel threads" suck because "one process/thread is known to be an
inefficient way of implementing kernel threads", but I haven't really
heard any arguments as to why it necessarily has to be? Why would it
be inherently more inefficient than LWPs, which is just another layer
put in between the unix proc structs and the scheduler (in SUNs
implementation anyway) anyway?
I am quite willing to believe Linux has a lousy implementation of threads,
but the certainty with which the above quote is often put forward reminds
me I'd like to know why this is "necessarily so".
/ali: Computer Science Major and aspiring cartoonist. :-)
(dept) firstname.lastname@example.org - http://www.ludat.lth.se/~dat94ali
(home) email@example.com - http://h543.sparta.lu.se/
* A4000/040-40/CV3D/Ariadne·AmigaOS·NetBSD·A3000/040-25/Ariadne *