Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 11 Mar 1998 01:31:43 +0100 (CET) | From | Thomas Heide Clausen <> | Subject | Re: mmap() versus read() |
| |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 11-Mar-98 Perry Harrington wrote:
[ Bandwidth saving SNIP imposed ]
> is that multiple threads are scheduled upone a single LWP. In > traditional > Solaris, it allocates LWPs sparsely. The only reason to do a > 1:1 binding, > or specify a binding, is that LWPs are the entities block on > system calls. > As long as you're not calling any calls that could block, LWPs > can efficiently > schedule threads. This is advantageous in that thread > creation is REALLY > inexpensive, because it doesn't create a new LWP every time. > I think that > this is the secret to an appropriate thread implmentation > thats "lightweight".
[ SNIP again.... ]
> Robust threading is a prime requirement for mission > critical programs > that would otherwise occupy a Sparc...
For your information: Solaris pukes in processes with more than about 20000 concurrently active threads (I can repeatidly on a Enterprise 2 with 1GB ram get it to puke on thread no. 14287). Haven't figured out why yet, though....but it would be cool if the Linux version didn't have such constraints....
- --thomas
(ps: anyone has a clue or similar experiences?)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNQXbBMQLb2bL5bWVAQFTWQP9Hj0QGQHgwH0pBdCXTSeKDqhcg41uxidS nZ2cR9HZBa9Pc9zjOKL8XFJi6HEPY0hbhwMfYvqRjoV8f0cumFa2i+1ypowUQ9B/ UabQkpT7VbIcrpTR9l1w9dbbRuxufWl9dLDOc2teTpEsZRysTx8kY+gTpFPh1z8E s8O248gMMPY= =iHv6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
| |