* Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > your whole reasoning seems to be faith-based:
> >
> > [...] Anyway, kevents are very small, threads are very big, [...]
> >
> > How about following the scientific method instead?
>
> That are only rethorical words as you have understood I bet, I meant
> that the whole process of getting readiness notification from kevent
> is way tooo much faster than resheduling of the new process/thread to
> handle that IO.
>
> The whole process of switching from one process to another can be as
> fast as bloody hell, but all other details just kill the thing.
for our primary abstractions there /IS NO OTHER DETAIL/ but wakeup and
context-switching! The "event notification" of a sys_read() /IS/ the
wakeup and context-switching that we do - or the epoll/kevent enqueueing
as an alternative.
yes, the two are still different in a number of ways, and yes, it's
still stupid to do a pool of thousands of threads and thus we can always
optimize queuing, RAM and cache footprint via specialization, but your
whole foundation seems to be constructed around the false notion that
queueing and scheduling a task by the scheduler is somehow magically
expensive and different from queueing and scheduling other type of
requests. Please reconsider that foundation and open up a bit more to a
slightly different world view: scheduling is really just another, more
generic (and thus certainly more expensive) type of 'request queueing',
and user-space, most of the time, is much better off if it handles its
'requests' and 'events' via tasks. (Especially if many of those 'events'
turn out to be non-events at all, so to speak.)
Ingo
-
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/
