Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 18:19:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 18:19:25 -0500 Received: from bitmover.com ([192.132.92.2]:44193 "EHLO mail.bitmover.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 18:19:24 -0500 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:28:34 -0800 From: Larry McVoy To: Lee Chin Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-newbie@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: debate on 700 threads vs asynchronous code Message-ID: <20030123232834.GA17554@work.bitmover.com> Mail-Followup-To: Larry McVoy , Lee Chin , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-newbie@vger.kernel.org References: <20030123231913.26663.qmail@mail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030123231913.26663.qmail@mail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-MailScanner: Found to be clean Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > b) Write an asycnhrounous system with only 2 or three threads where I manage the connections and stack (via setcontext swapcontext etc), which is progromatically a little harder > > Which way will yeild me better performance, considerng both approaches are implemented optimally? If this is a serious question, an async system will by definition do better. You have either 700 stacks screwing up the data cache or 2-3 stacks nicely fitting in the data cache. Ditto for instruction cache, etc. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm - 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/