[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070227081611.GB16295@2ka.mipt.ru>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:16:11 +0300
From: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
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>,
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
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: threadlets as 'naive pool of threads', epoll, some measurements
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 09:23:38PM +0100, Ingo Molnar (mingo@...e.hu) wrote:
>
> * Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru> wrote:
>
> > > no. Please read the evserver_threadlet.c code. There's no kevent in
> > > there. There's no epoll() in there. All that you can see there is
> > > the natural behavior of pure threadlets. And it's not a workload /I/
> > > picked for threadlets - it is a workload, filesize, parallelism
> > > level and request handling function /you/ picked for
> > > "event-servers".
> >
> > I know that there is no kevents there, that would be really strange if
> > you would test it in your environment after all that empty kevent
> > releases.
>
> i havent got around figuring out the last v2.6.20 based kevent release,
> and your git tree is v2.6.21-rc1 based. Do you have some easy URL for me
> to fetch the last v2.6.20 kevent release?
I use kevent-36 release patches on top of 2.6.20 tree.
There are some syscall numbers overlap with thrteadlet patches, but
rejectsa re trivial.
> > Enough, you say micro-thread design is superior - ok, that is your
> > point.
>
> note that threadlets are not 'micro-threads'. A threadlet is more of an
> 'optional thread' (as i mentioned it earlier): whenever it does anything
> that makes it distinct from a plain function call, it's converted into a
> separate thread by the kernel. Otherwise it behaves like a plain
> function call and returns.
I know.
But it is rare case for the most situations, when things do not block,
so I called it micro-thread, since it spawns a new thread (get from
preallocated pool) for parallel processing.
> Ingo
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists