Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 16:06:20 -0700 (MST) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: bmilekic@unixdaemons.com Cc: sam@errno.com, bright@mu.org, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: M_ flags summary. Message-ID: <20030122.160620.127772741.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20030122175158.A77397@unixdaemons.com> References: <20030122155457.A77036@unixdaemons.com> <20030122.150305.79160884.imp@bsdimp.com> <20030122175158.A77397@unixdaemons.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <20030122175158.A77397@unixdaemons.com>
Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@unixdaemons.com> writes:
: What on earth are you talking about? "The more kernel threads block
: the higher latency you introduce?" That's totally non-sensical; how
: about you make EVERYTHING non-blocking then and let's just ditch
: blocking for resources altogether because it "increases latency?!"
: You're NOT increasing latency when you're blocking when you have
: nothing available.
I made my point badly, and given your understanding of it, I can
understand why you think I'm nuts. I was speaking with language that
wasn't tight enough. Thread that can block will have a larger
variance in latency than thread that don't block. Even though I made
that point badly, the variance is likely a parameter that isn't of
high enough importance to have it imfluance the API/ABI.
I'm sorry if you find arguing with me frustrating. To be honest, I'm
starting to agree with your point of view on this in many instances.
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030122.160620.127772741.imp>