linux-kernel - Re: [patch 00/13] Syslets, "Threadlets", generic AIO support, v3

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 1 Mar 2007 11:18:08 +0300
From:	Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
To:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@....com.au>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Suparna Bhattacharya <suparna@...ibm.com>,
	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/13] Syslets, "Threadlets", generic AIO support, v3

On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 04:14:14PM +0000, Pavel Machek (pavel@....cz) wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > > I think what you are not hearing, and what everyone else is saying
> > > (INCLUDING Linus), is that for most programmers, state machines are
> > > much, much harder to program, understand, and debug compared to
> > > multi-threaded code.  You may disagree (were you a MacOS 9 programmer
> > > in another life?), and it may not even be true for you if you happen
> > > to be one of those folks more at home with Scheme continuations, for
> > > example.  But it is true that for most kernel programmers, threaded
> > > programming is much easier to understand, and we need to engineer the
> > > kernel for what will be maintainable for the majority of the kernel
> > > development community.
> > 
> > I understand that - and I totally agree.
> > But when more complex, more bug-prone code results in higher performance
> > - that must be used. We have linked lists and binary trees - the latter
> 
> No-o. Kernel is not designed like that.
> 
> Often, more complex and slightly faster code exists, and we simply use
> slower variant, because it is fast enough.
> 
> 10% gain in speed is NOT worth major complexity increase.

Should I create a patch to remove rb-tree implementation?
That practice is stupid IMO.

> 							Pavel
> -- 
> (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
> (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

-- 
	Evgeniy Polyakov
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/