On Fri, 14 May 2010 15:05:44 +0100, B. Estrade <estr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 12:27:18PM +0100, nigelsande...@btconnect.com
wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 10:01:41 +0100, Ruud H.G. van Tol -
rv...@isolution.nl
<+nntp+browseruk+014f2ed3f9.rvtol#isolution...@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
>
>The support of threading should be completely optional. The threading
>support should not be active by default.
I'd like to understand why you say that?
Two reasons I can think of:
1: Performance. The perception that adding support for threading will
impact the performance of non-threaded applications.
I think that perhaps he's thinking of overhead associated with
spawning and managing threads - even just one...so, if only 1 thread
bound to a single core is desired, then I think this is a reasonable
and natural thing to want. Maybe the core binding on an SMP box would
be the more challenging issue to tackle. Then, again, this is the role
of the OS and libnuma (on Linux, anyway)...
Hm. Every process gets one thread by default. There is no overhead there.
And spawning 1000 (do nothing but sleep) threads takes 0.171 seconds?
Buk.
