Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 11:43:54 -0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Lucas Holt <luke@foolishgames.com> Cc: Ashwin Chandra <ashcs@ucla.edu> Subject: Re: sched_4BSD Message-ID: <4226177A.4050607@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <d6393363e38190175c60ba82b67fe971@foolishgames.com> References: <001a01c51d6d$d50ce500$abe243a4@ash> <4222D5A2.9010301@elischer.org> <641e6aa9050301112016d316bb@mail.gmail.com> <4224C74A.2030205@elischer.org> <d6393363e38190175c60ba82b67fe971@foolishgames.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Lucas Holt wrote: > 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? Isn't that what nice is for? if (only) two processes are using all the cpu they can get, and one is written using 1000 threads, then why should it get 1000/1001 of the cpu? > > > 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)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4226177A.4050607>