Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > I described in details why and how M:N model better, and its drawbacks > include all issues mentioned by Ulrich Drepper, but nevertheless its > advantages are far too superiour than those which can be > provided by 1:1 > model.
M:N threading is an unnecessary performance hack that's needed by people who are living in a C or C++ exile away from some language that has lexical closures, generators or first-class continuations. Not having these niceties, they resort to emulating them with threads. The proper thing to do is to rewrite the code to use state machines which can be driven by any available thread. Or else, write yourself a source-to-source transformer that will give C the lexical closure, generator, or continuation features that you need to express the solution that way. There is no need to retain any vestiges of a user space threading implementation when you have the real thing. Programs which appear to benefit from that model are badly optimized or badly designed. A smartly written program uses an available thread to do as much work as possible, until that thread happens to block or its time slice burns up. - 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/
