[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: revivesa status 2008/07/09
In article <20080711124745.GD3510%hairylemon.org@localhost>,
Andrew Doran <andrew%hairylemon.org@localhost> wrote:
>- it works only on a handful of architectures, eg x86.
Because md support has not been written. Is there an arch in which it cannot
be made to work?
>- in most tests its performance is demonstrably inferior to 1:1.
Except in the uniprocessor case, which was the issue that Bucky had...
>- it's completely unreliable, even opening the machine to DOS attacks.
This is a problem.
>- it has architectural, code quality and code maintenance issues.
Again this is a problem.
>- it completely lacks any kind of real-time support.
Because it has not been written.
>In its current form SA threading is a regressive proposition. Even if all
>the remaining issues are addressed, what benefits would it bring over and
>above 1:1 threading?
It is interesting as a research threading platform. The N:M threading model
is ~impossible to get working correctly. As long as it does not krud the kernel
code, it would be made a kernel option. Perhaps even a loadable module.
Main Index |
Thread Index |