[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Glibc-based Debian GNU/KNetBSD

>>>>> "Jimmy" == Jimmy Kaplowitz <jimmy@debian.org> writes:

Jimmy> On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 02:40:05PM +0200, Momchil Velikov wrote:
>> >>>>> "Jimmy" == Jimmy Kaplowitz <jimmy@debian.org> writes:
Jimmy> I can't find the exact messages for some of these examples of their
Jimmy> experience, but one post mentioned that the poster had implemented
Jimmy> applications using hundreds or thousands of threads; 
>> How can this be considered anything else than an evidence of mental
>> illness ? (I purposedly avoid attributing it to malice).
>> Or was this simply a pointless "benchmark" ?

Jimmy> What I meant by mentioning it was that this poster actually seemed to
Jimmy> have a legitimately useful (to him) application that legitimately needed
Jimmy> lots of threads, and getting it to work well on his development or test
Jimmy> system must have required a fair amount of familiarity with threads
Jimmy> and/or his OS's implementation of threads. 

  And what I meant is that anyone writing an application with hundreds
or thousands of threads should either choose another field or seek
professional help.  (Well, he/she might be the first one to make the
breakthrough of finding such legitimately useful application, but I'd
rather take the risk of wrongfully accusing him/her in incompetence).

  That's, of course, wrt. to the usefulness of the scheduler
activations idea or, for that matter, of any N:M (N != 1 && M != 1)
threading architecture.

Jimmy> I believe the poster was
Jimmy> offering it to Robert as a way to test his eventual port of a threads
Jimmy> library to glibc-on-BSD to see if it performs well and is thread-safe
Jimmy> for thread-intensive applications such as his. (To give you an idea of
Jimmy> this poster's standards, he stated that he considered all versions of
Jimmy> Linux prior to the existence of NPTL not to be thread-safe for his
Jimmy> purposes.)

What's the point in demonstrating how fast can you do nothing ?


Reply to: