>>>>> "Matt" == Matt Welsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Matt> In either case we need to get Linux native threads to scale
Matt> much better than they do now. This might mean convincing the
Matt> kernel developers that scaling up to thousands of threads is
Matt> important --
I still haven't seen one good argument for using thousands of threads
except for working around Java's _current_ IO limitations and doing
better on benchmarks which test work-arounds for these IO limitations.
Matt> does anyone have a reading on what the kernel folks think
Matt> about the current situation? In the past I believe they
Matt> didn't think this was an important problem to solve.
The basic problem seems to be a different understanding of threads.
Java programmers tend to see threads as an ordinary design concept
while most other people see threads as a concept to improve
performance.
Java developers tend to use too many threads and wonder when
performance degrades. Linux's current thread model is designed to
give best performance with a handful of active threads (and a
two-level scheduler would bring a slight performance penalty for this
case).
Juergen
--
Juergen Kreileder, Blackdown Java-Linux Team
http://www.blackdown.org/java-linux.html
JVM'01: http://www.usenix.org/events/jvm01/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
