Re: Comments on the KSE option

On Sunday 29 October 2006 12:08, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006, Paul Allen wrote:
> > Anyways it remains dubious in my mind that the kernel should allow
> > a user to create many processes but penalize creating threads.
>
> Are you even _reading_ what people are saying?  No one has
> said that you can't have system scope threads.  Stop with
> the FUD.  The question we seem to be arguing about is whether
> to also allow (and perhaps make default) process scope threads
> (these are fair threads).

I read what Paul said was that system scope threads have a 
different "fairness" than processes. ie:

If your application requires 1000 threads of execution, you can write it three 
ways, with 1000 processes, 1000 system scope threads or 1000 process scope 
threads (or a mix of the three).  

This whole "fairness" argument is about making system scope threads have the 
same priority as process scope threads.  It leaves out the process model.

The real question here is: are we going to make system scope thread model fair 
compared to process scope threaded model, or fair compared to the separate 
processes model?

Yes, the process scope threads are allways going to be the poor man with 
regard to priority, but as the kernel doesn't see the threads you can't do 
much about it.

Lucas

-- 
What if there had been room at the inn?
		-- Linda Festa on the origins of Christianity