[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0702230935440.30937@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:43:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.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>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/13] Syslets, "Threadlets", generic AIO support, v3
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 11:46:48AM -0800, Davide Libenzi (davidel@...ilserver.org) wrote:
> >
> > A dynamic pool will smooth thread creation/freeing up by a lot.
> > And, in my box a *pthread* create/free takes ~10us, at 1000/s is 10ms, 1%.
> > Bad, but not so aweful ;)
> > Look, I'm *definitely* not trying to advocate the use of async syscalls for
> > network here, just pointing out that when we're talking about threads,
> > Linux does a pretty good job.
>
> If we are going to create 1000 threads each second, then it is better to
> preallocate them and queue a work to that pool - like syslets did with
> syscalls, but not ulitimately create a new thread just because it is not
> that slow.
We do create a pool indeed, as I said in the opening of my asnwer. The
numbers I posted was just to show that thread creation/destroy is pretty
fast, but that does not justify it as a design choice.
> All such micro-thread designs are especially good in the case when
> 1. switching is _rare_ (very)
> 2. programmer does not want to create complex model to achieve maximum
> performance
>
> Disk (cached) IO definitely hits first entry and second one is there for
> advertisements and fast deployment, but overall usage of the
> asynchronous IO model is not limited to the above scenario, so
> micro-threads definitely hit own niche, but they can not cover all usage
> cases.
You know, I read this a few times, but I still don't get what your point
is here ;) Are you talking about micro-thread design in the kernel as for
kthreads usage for AIO, or about userspace?
- Davide
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists