Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 23:27:12 +0100
From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>
To: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>
Cc: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: cur{thread/proc}, or not.
Message-ID: <1970.1005517632@critter.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 11 Nov 2001 11:17:34 PST." <20011111191735.00D053807@overcee.netplex.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20011111191735.00D053807@overcee.netplex.com.au>, Peter Wemm writes:
> [ass'y output of gcc]
>
>Ever wonder why the kernel gets slower and slower to compile? Ever
>compiled a 2.1 or 2.2 kernel on a modern machine and been shocked away by
>the speed?
>
>Count me in the 'curproc considered harmful' camp. (or curthread).
Peters example more than clenches the argument for me, but I also
wonder if we would not paint ourselves into a corner with the
cur{proc|thread} stuff if the future ends up being more parallel
and cluster-oriented.
<VOICE MODE=GODFATHER">
Roberto! come over here!
Do you zink zese Curproc and Curthread they will get losst on zeir way home ?
Good boy.
</VOICE>
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
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?1970.1005517632>