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/
