Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 10:18:26 +0100 From: Marc Olzheim <marcolz@stack.nl> To: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Subject: Re: 1:1 Threading implementation. Message-ID: <20030326091826.GA79113@stack.nl> In-Reply-To: <20030326031245.O64602-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0303252335280.22804-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> <20030326031245.O64602-100000@mail.chesapeake.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 03:36:57AM -0500, Jeff Roberson wrote: > First, if your application has more threads than cpus it is written > incorrectly. For people who are doing thread pools instead of event > driven IO models they will encounter the same overhead with M:N as 1:1. > I'm not sure what applications are entirely compute and have more threads > than cpus. These are the only ones which really theoretically benefit. I > don't think our threading model should be designed to optimize poorly > thought out applications. Might I suggest that there are 'nice' C++ ways of using thread-classes where both the usual C++ dogmas of readability and reuseability make you easily end up with more threads than cpus... I think that from a userland's point of view, most programmers shouldn't be caring less about how many cpus the machine has their core is running on. With this (not limited to) C++ model in mind, the M:N way would be a great thing to have. Zlo
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030326091826.GA79113>