Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 17:38:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 17:37:12 -0400 Received: from twinlark.arctic.org ([208.44.199.239]:43459 "EHLO twinlark.arctic.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 17:36:22 -0400 Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 14:41:33 -0700 (PDT) From: dean gaudet To: Larry McVoy cc: Bill Davidsen , Peter Waechtler , , ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Native POSIX Thread Library 0.1 In-Reply-To: <20020923083004.B14944@work.bitmover.com> Message-ID: X-comment: visit http://arctic.org/~dean/legal for information regarding copyright and disclaimer. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1086 Lines: 26 On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Larry McVoy wrote: > What do you think causes a context switch in > a threaded program? What? Could it be blocking on I/O? unfortunately java was originally designed with a thread-per-connection model as the *only* method of implementing servers. there wasn't a non-blocking network API ... and i hear that such an API is in the works, but i've no idea where it is yet. so while this is I/O, it's certainly less efficient to have thousands of tasks blocked in read(2) versus having thousands of entries in . this is a java problem though... i posted a jvm straw-man proposal years ago when IBM posted some "linux threading isn't efficient" paper. since java threads are way less painful to implement than pthreads, i suggested the jvm do the M part of M:N. -dean - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/