Subject: Re: upcalls?
To: Martin Husemann <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Ignatios Souvatzis <email@example.com>
Date: 12/09/1999 11:44:11
On Thu, Dec 09, 1999 at 10:27:56AM +0100, Martin Husemann wrote:
> > This is the absolute, complete antithesis of scheduler activations, as
> > it gives you an insane amount of overhead. It would actually be
> > *cheaper* to just have one `kernel thread' per user thread.
> This might proove my ignorance, but I don't see the big win in having
> userland libraries fake more threads to the application than the kernel
> supports (with the one big exception beeing the kernel only supporting a
> single thread).
> Are there any results on the value of additional-userland-threads available,
> mesured in real world scenarios?
Yes. Think "networking server", for example. Something like a NNTP or HTTP
server can be coded more efficient than with fork()s, and more elegant than
single-threaded+poll()/select()+lots of legwork in the code.
* Progress (n.): The process through which Usenet has evolved from
smart people in front of dumb terminals to dumb people in front of
smart terminals. -- firstname.lastname@example.org (obscurity)