On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > but if the application /has/ identified fundamental parallelism, we
> > /must not/ shut that parallelism off by /designing/ this interface to
> > use the fibril thing which is a limited cooperative, single-CPU entity.
>
> Right. We should for example encourage people to use some kind of
> paralellizing construct.
>
> I know! We could even call them "threads", so to give people the idea that
> they are independent smaller entities in a thicker "rope", and we could
> call that bigger entity a "task" or "process", since it "processes" data.
>
> Or is that just too far out?
So the above was obviously tongue-in-cheek, but you should really think
about the context here.
We're discussing doing *single* system calls. There is absolutely zero
point to try to parallelize the work over multiple CPU's or threads. We're
literally talking about doing things where the actual CPU cost is in the
hundreds of nanoseconds, and where traditionally a rather noticeable part
of the cost is not the code itself, but the high cost of taking a system
call trap, and saving all the register state.
When parallelising "real work", I absolutely agree with you: we should use
threads. But you need to look at what it is we parallelize here, and ask
yourself why we're doing what we're doing, and why people aren't *already*
just using a separate thread for it.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
