From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Jan 8 03:28:56 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA09948 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 03:28:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from chiark.greenend.org.uk (chiark.greenend.org.uk [195.224.76.132]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id DAA09942 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 03:28:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fanf@chiark.greenend.org.uk) Received: from fanf by chiark.greenend.org.uk with local (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zya5Y-0002dx-00 (Debian); Fri, 8 Jan 1999 11:28:24 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <13973.60376.9845.729115@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 11:28:24 +0000 (GMT) From: dot@dotat.at (Tony Finch) To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: pthreads question/problem... In-Reply-To: <199901070335.UAA11431@usr09.primenet.com> References: <199901070335.UAA11431@usr09.primenet.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.47 under Emacs 19.34.1 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Terry Lambert writes: > > > Sometimes you want M to be large relative to the number of CPUs > > because you are using threading to improve userland IO concurrency. > > Finish the thought: > > "...and you don't want to use async I/O to improve I/O > concurrency because, while doing so would be less overhead > than using a bunch of threads, it doesn't accomplish > your *real* goal." The other reason for not using aio is because the aio calls do not cover the whole range of system calls that block (open, close, stat, unlink, etc...). I don't see how you can fix that without either using some sort of fork or adding stuff to the API. Tony. -- f.a.n.finch fanf@demon.net dot@dotat.at To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message