| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Thread-based or event-based?Thread-based or event-based?Posted Mar 4, 2007 18:55 UTC (Sun) by rwmj (guest, #5474)In reply to: Thread-based or event-based? by bronson Parent article: Thread-based or event-based?
Personally, I've found that an event-based model is great when you're doing trivial operations (say, a transparent proxy), but tends to fall apart when you're doing more complex stuff (say, a caching proxy with arbitrary, dynamic L7 rewrites). Get that state machine right on the first try! Even a small change tends to turn into a huge rippling modification if you didn't anticipate it. It's actually possible to implement threads on top of events. See for example my implementation in pthrlib. At the syscall level, this is using poll(2) to poll for events. However the programming model is cooperative threads. It's also possible to turn threads back into events, but (I'm guessing) this won't be very efficient because threads are certainly heavier than events. So this is one contribution to the argument that the kernel should just deliver up events, and allow the userspace to deal with those directly, or turn them into threads a la pthrlib. Rich.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||