| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Making Linux safe for pthreadsMaking Linux safe for pthreadsPosted Aug 15, 2002 10:06 UTC (Thu) by stevelinton (guest, #3274)In reply to: Making Linux safe for pthreads by IkeTo Parent article: Making Linux safe for pthreads OK, so 1000 threads consumed 4MB of unswappable kernel memory. How is this a problem? Maybe on some embedded systems, but even a palmtop usually has 64MB today, and a laptop at least 128MB. Anyway 1000 threads probably means a high-end server task, and no serious server today has less than 1GB of RAM.
(Log in to post comments)
Making Linux safe for pthreads Posted Aug 16, 2002 20:41 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] I think 1000 threads implies high end server only because the threads are so expensive. If they were cheaper, we could use that mechanism on old cheap computers for simple things too. There are LOTS of old machines with less than 64MB of memory that would be nice to be able to use. (My primary machine, that I use for mail, web browsing, compiling, database, and other routine computing has 40 MB).There remains the irony that it takes 8K of state information and stack space to do with a Linux thread what would take only a few words to do in a non-thread alternative. Hence the idea that there must be some waste there that can be reclaimed.
|
|
||||||||||||