On Tuesday 10 April 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Thus, rather than forcing authors to make their code more complex, we
> should find another solution.
What about sth. like the "pre-forking" concept? So just have a thread creator thread,
which checks the amount of unused threads and keeps them within certain limits.
So that anything which needs a thread now simply queues up the work and
specifies, that it wants a new thread, if possible.
One problem seems to be, that a thread is nothing else but a statement
on what other tasks I can wait before doing my current one (e.g. I don't want to
mlseep() twice on the same reset timeout).
But we usually use locking to order that.
Do I miss anything fundamental here?
Regards
Ingo Oeser
-
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]
