Hi, Thanks for the rpely... my question was more so, with setcontext and swapcontext, I will still be messing with the data cache right?
In otherwords, as long as I have an async system with out setcontext, I know I am good... but with it, havent I degraded to a threaded environment? Thanks Lee ----- Original Message ----- From: Larry McVoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:28:34 -0800 To: Lee Chin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: debate on 700 threads vs asynchronous code > > 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 -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup Meet Singles http://corp.mail.com/lavalife - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs
