From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 2 16:55:50 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90B8416A4CE for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2005 16:55:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.foolishgames.com (mail.foolishgames.com [216.55.178.45]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53EEF43D39 for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2005 16:55:50 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from luke@foolishgames.com) Received: from [192.168.0.49] (24.247.120.6.kzo.mi.chartermi.net [24.247.120.6]) (authenticated bits=0)j22GtdXH035718 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 2 Mar 2005 08:55:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from luke@foolishgames.com) X-Authentication-Warning: mail.foolishgames.com: Host 24.247.120.6.kzo.mi.chartermi.net [24.247.120.6] claimed to be [192.168.0.49] Message-Id: X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 16:05:08 -0500 X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this From: Lucas Holt X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated In-Reply-To: <4224C74A.2030205@elischer.org> References: <001a01c51d6d$d50ce500$abe243a4@ash> <4222D5A2.9010301@elischer.org> <641e6aa9050301112016d316bb@mail.gmail.com> <4224C74A.2030205@elischer.org> To: Julian Elischer X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619.2) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619.2) cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org cc: Sarath Kamisetty cc: Ashwin Chandra Subject: Re: sched_4BSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 16:55:50 -0000 Wouldn't a multi threaded program potentially need more cpu time than vi? Multithreaded apps are created to do a lot of computation or because they have a lot of concurrent activity that might block right? On Mar 1, 2005, at 2:49 PM, Julian Elischer wrote: >> > > If you make 1000 threads, you get 1000 slots on the scheduler. (last > time I looked.. > Let me know if I'm wrong). > > The guy next to you with 'vi' gets 1 slot.. > who gets more cpu? > Lucas Holt Luke@FoolishGames.com ________________________________________________________ FoolishGames.com (Jewel Fan Site) JustJournal.com (Free blogging) FoolishGames.net (Enemy Territory IoM site)