On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 12:06:40PM -0700, Kip Macy wrote:
> This may sound like flamebait, but its not. Linux threads are basically
> just processes that share the same address space. Their performance is
> measurably worse than it is on most commercial Unixes and FreeBSD.
Thread creation may be a bit slow. But the kludges to provide posix threads
completely from userspace also hurt. Notably, they do not scale over
multiple CPUs.
> They are not, or at least two years ago, were not POSIX compliant
> (they behaved badly with respect to signals). The impoverished
POSIX threads are silly with respect to signals. I do almost all my
programming these days with pthreads and I find that I really do not miss
signals at all.
> from Larry McVoy's home page attributed to Alan Cox illustrates this
> reasonably well: "A computer is a state machine. Threads are for people
> who can't program state machines." Sorry for not being more helpful.
I got that response too. When I pressed kernel people for details it turns
out that they think having hundreds of runnable threads/processes (mostly
the same thing under Linux) is wasteful. The scheduler is just not optimised
for that.
Regards,
bert
--
http://www.PowerDNS.com Versatile DNS Services
Trilab The Technology People
'SYN! .. SYN|ACK! .. ACK!' - the mating call of the internet
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
