On Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 09:32:36AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> [..] You do
> pay a price for not sharing TLB entries if the OS is stupid (Linux' is
> not).
Even assuming all segments are attached at the same virtual address on all MM
(this can be enforced with MAP_FIXED of course), we can't use
Great post. Rob Pike said it best, if you are trying to distill it down
to one sentence, when he said
"If you think you need threads, you processes are too fat"
Stevel Kleiman had a somewhat more cryptic comment (somewhat is an
understatement, it took me years to let it sink in) in
On Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 12:11:04PM -0500, Michael Rothwell wrote:
[snip]
> One notable difference between Linux and NT threads and processes is
> that it is more expensive to create new processes on NT than on Linux,
> and on NT thread creation is cheaper than process creation. Typically
>
Ruth Ivimey-Cook wrote:
> No. Java on NT uses proper NT threads. However, a thread on NT is a rather
> different beast to a cloned thread on Linux. I don't know whether the
> differences are important.
On Linux, threads are processes. On NT, processes are distinct from
threads, and usually have
At 04:11 PM 11/30/00, Arnaud Installe wrote:
>Could this be correct ? Also, I haven't seen this happen with NT. Could
>it be that Java on NT uses user-mode threading and creates threads much
>more slowly, resulting in a lower load ?
No. Java on NT uses proper NT threads. However, a thread on
At 04:11 PM 11/30/00, Arnaud Installe wrote:
Could this be correct ? Also, I haven't seen this happen with NT. Could
it be that Java on NT uses user-mode threading and creates threads much
more slowly, resulting in a lower load ?
No. Java on NT uses proper NT threads. However, a thread on NT
Ruth Ivimey-Cook wrote:
No. Java on NT uses proper NT threads. However, a thread on NT is a rather
different beast to a cloned thread on Linux. I don't know whether the
differences are important.
On Linux, threads are processes. On NT, processes are distinct from
threads, and usually have at
On Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 12:11:04PM -0500, Michael Rothwell wrote:
[snip]
One notable difference between Linux and NT threads and processes is
that it is more expensive to create new processes on NT than on Linux,
and on NT thread creation is cheaper than process creation. Typically
Windows
Great post. Rob Pike said it best, if you are trying to distill it down
to one sentence, when he said
"If you think you need threads, you processes are too fat"
Stevel Kleiman had a somewhat more cryptic comment (somewhat is an
understatement, it took me years to let it sink in) in
On Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 09:32:36AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
[..] You do
pay a price for not sharing TLB entries if the OS is stupid (Linux' is
not).
Even assuming all segments are attached at the same virtual address on all MM
(this can be enforced with MAP_FIXED of course), we can't use the
300
David Lang
On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Arnaud Installe wrote:
> Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 10:47:45 +0100
> From: Arnaud Installe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: David Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: high load & poor interactivity on fast thread
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 03:00:10PM -0800, David Lang wrote:
> try the 2.4 test kernels. I had a situation of poor performance with lots
> of processes and saw a dramatic improvement with the 2.4 kernel.
So what load average should I expect Linux versions 2.2 and 2.4 to perform
well under ? I'm
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 03:00:10PM -0800, David Lang wrote:
try the 2.4 test kernels. I had a situation of poor performance with lots
of processes and saw a dramatic improvement with the 2.4 kernel.
So what load average should I expect Linux versions 2.2 and 2.4 to perform
well under ? I'm
David Lang
On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Arnaud Installe wrote:
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 10:47:45 +0100
From: Arnaud Installe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: David Lang [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: high load poor interactivity on fast thread creation
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 03:00:10PM
try the 2.4 test kernels. I had a situation of poor performance with lots
of processes and saw a dramatic improvement with the 2.4 kernel.
David Lang
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Arnaud Installe wrote:
> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:14:43 +0100
> From: Arnaud Installe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To:
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Arnaud Installe wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 08:47:49AM -0600, Ray Bryant wrote:
> > The IBM implementations of the Java language use native threads --
> > the result is that every time you do a Java thread creation, you
> > end up with a new cloned process. Now this
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 08:47:49AM -0600, Ray Bryant wrote:
> The IBM implementations of the Java language use native threads --
> the result is that every time you do a Java thread creation, you
> end up with a new cloned process. Now this should be pretty fast,
Well, I think the problem is
> When creating a lot of Java threads per second linux slows down to a
> crawl. I don't think this happens on NT, probably because NT doesn't
> create new threads as fast as Linux does.
Also probably the Java implementation on NT is not creating true threads for
each java thread as the IBM java
The IBM implementations of the Java language use native threads --
the result is that every time you do a Java thread creation, you
end up with a new cloned process. Now this should be pretty fast,
so I am surprised that it stalls like that. It is possible this
is a scheduler effect. Do you
The IBM implementations of the Java language use native threads --
the result is that every time you do a Java thread creation, you
end up with a new cloned process. Now this should be pretty fast,
so I am surprised that it stalls like that. It is possible this
is a scheduler effect. Do you
When creating a lot of Java threads per second linux slows down to a
crawl. I don't think this happens on NT, probably because NT doesn't
create new threads as fast as Linux does.
Also probably the Java implementation on NT is not creating true threads for
each java thread as the IBM java
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 08:47:49AM -0600, Ray Bryant wrote:
The IBM implementations of the Java language use native threads --
the result is that every time you do a Java thread creation, you
end up with a new cloned process. Now this should be pretty fast,
Well, I think the problem is that
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Arnaud Installe wrote:
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 08:47:49AM -0600, Ray Bryant wrote:
The IBM implementations of the Java language use native threads --
the result is that every time you do a Java thread creation, you
end up with a new cloned process. Now this should be
try the 2.4 test kernels. I had a situation of poor performance with lots
of processes and saw a dramatic improvement with the 2.4 kernel.
David Lang
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Arnaud Installe wrote:
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:14:43 +0100
From: Arnaud Installe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Arnaud
24 matches
Mail list logo
