Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:07:44 -0300 From: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@tcoip.com.br> To: Max Khon <fjoe@iclub.nsu.ru> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 1:1 threading. Message-ID: <3E82F7A0.2020604@tcoip.com.br> In-Reply-To: <20030327150313.A8897@iclub.nsu.ru> References: <20030327020402.T64602-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> <3E82B795.DDB0C6A4@mindspring.com> <20030327150313.A8897@iclub.nsu.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Max Khon wrote:
> hi, there!
>
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 12:34:29AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
>
>
>>>>After reading your 1:1 threading code, I think you needn't
>>>>hack current KSE code to build your own 1:1 threading code.
>>>>Our code allow you to do this, actully, it's my earlier
>>>>idea to let 1:1 be implemented in our M:N code base, but never
>>>>had told this to julian or others.
>>>
>>>It was actually done outside of KSE on purpose. It keeps the API simpler
>>>and cleaner. It keeps the implementation cleaner. It keeps it out of the
>>>majority of the KSE code paths aside from thread_suspend and related
>>>code.
>>>
>>>I wanted something small and stable that built on top of KSE provided
>>>primitives but did not actually use the KSE apis. This makes it easier
>>>for KSE to continue growing and changing while the 1:1 code remains
>>>simple. It also removes some of the cost associated with doing KSE.
>>
>>This isn't really a legitimate argument.
>
>
> Seconded. do you have numbers that clearly show that using Julian's approach
> leads to serious performance penalty? Using KSE APIs is not that difficult
> as far as I understand, so why we need to introduce more hacks?
As much as I'd prefer the 1:1 threading to use as much of the KSE code
as possible, Jeff's decision wasn't related to performance issues.
What Jeff wanted to do is to _avoid_ using as much of the KSE API as
possible so his code wouldn't get in the way of that API, with two
obvious benefits:
1) Changes to that API (and there have been some in the past) won't
affect his 1:1 threading code and, thus, won't upset real applications
using that threading.
2) His 1:1 threading code won't slow down further KSE development nor
influence any changes to the KSE API.
The reason I personally prefer otherwise is so that (1) above won't be
true. Ie, any bugs or performance issues introduced in the KSE code
*will* affect real applications, so that they can be detected and fixed.
--
Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS)
Gerencia de Operacoes
Divisao de Comunicacao de Dados
Coordenacao de Seguranca
TCO
Fones: 55-61-313-7654/Cel: 55-61-9618-0904
E-mail: Daniel.Capo@tco.net.br
Daniel.Sobral@tcoip.com.br
dcs@tcoip.com.br
Outros:
dcs@newsguy.com
dcs@freebsd.org
capo@notorious.bsdconspiracy.net
A lady stockholder quite hetera
Decided her fortune to bettera:
On the floor, quite unclad,
She successively had
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, et cetera...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3E82F7A0.2020604>