On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 06:32:11PM -0700, Dan Kegel wrote: > root wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 02:22:51PM -0700, Dan Kegel wrote: > > > Nathan Meyers wrote: > > > > The current Linux implementation of POSIX threads uses the clone() kernel > > > > call for each thread, resulting in a 1-1 mapping to kernel threads. > > > > The work on a new POSIX threads implementation with Solaris-style NxM > > > > threads should vastly improve the Linux JVM's scalability. > > > > > > I dunno about that. clone() is pretty darn fast, and > > > there are patches to make the Linux scheduler handle > > > many running processes well. Once that scheduler > > > patch is in the standard kernel, there will be no real advantage > > > to NxM threads, IMHO. > > > > I'd be thrilled to see that happen. The problem has been, at least in > > part, exhaustion of precious resources (process IDs) - something that > > NxM threading models would help alleviate. Will the scheduler changes > > help with that? > > The 2.4 kernel uses 32 bit process ids, so that shouldn't be a > problem. Are there other precious resources you're worried about? > If not, there's a good chance NxM threading models will simply > introduce complexity rather than add performance. That was Linus' > bet long ago, and the question is still open.
I'll defer to anyone who's faced this problem head-on. Any opinions from those who've hit the wall when scaling up Java on Linux? Nathan > > By the way, the scheduler patches are at > http://lse.sourceforge.net/scheduling/ > > - Dan > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
