Messages in this thread | | | From | cd_smith@ou ... | Date | Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:04:58 -0500 (CDT) | Subject | Re: linux-kernel-digest V1 #4149 |
| |
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Khimenko Victor wrote: > Hmm. Why to limit it this way ? Why not have arbitrary ThreadGroups so you > can have 10 threads in some http-database gateway to work with database, > 10 different threads to work with network and all under ubrealla of the same > process ?
I think that's going a little far. What do you gain from having thread groups recognized by the kernel? You're obviously thinking of the Java model, but Java uses them as an organizational tool that can be just as easily (and cleanly) implemented in user space. Fact is, different processes ("process clusters") will own threads (processes) that are related in a lot of different ways to each other, NONE of which matter to the kernel. Not even hierarchy makes much sense when threads (processes) are that closely related - but we can ignore it. But introducing yet another arbitrary organization like thread groups - that's messy to implement in the kernel and does no one any good by being there - is working backwards.
Chris Smith <cd_smith@ou.edu>
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |