Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:44:48 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@tcoip.com.br> Cc: Scott Long <scott_long@btc.adaptec.com> Subject: Re: 1:1 threading. Message-ID: <3E8524C0.5F80D3D@mindspring.com> References: <20030327143259.I64602-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> <3E843009.2060104@tcoip.com.br>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Daniel C. Sobral" wrote: > David Xu wrote: > > do you think that a multithreaded process should use more CPU time then > > a single thread process, so threaded process should have higher priority > > and block other single thread processes out? AFAIK, threading is not > > designed for this, you may misunderstand what threading is designed for. > > Threading might not have been originally designed for this, but a lot of > people use it this way, a lot of people *want* it this way, and POSIX > specifically mandates that this way be available. > > So let's drop that issue, please. A side question... Is there an administrative limit on the number of threads that you can create in a process, such that the total number is limited to the number of processes you are administratively limited to creating? I.e., the administrative limit on number of child processes is implicitly an administrative limit on how much quantum you can use; is the limit still enforced on threads, as well? -- Terry
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3E8524C0.5F80D3D>