On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 01:04:50PM -0400, Paul G wrote: > the issue wasn't necessarily the thread implementation per se, but the fact > that threads were treated as processes for scheduling purposes and hence > scheduled with the regular process scheduler, which was not efficient for a > large number of processes. these problems went away when ingo molnar's O(1) > scheduler was adopted (not sure when it was merged into linus' 2.4, but
Interesting. Then that may explain why I never heard any first hand reports of notable Linux threading problems. The people I tended to talk to were probably all running with well under 100 threads per process, and only 2 or 3 such processes at most. Presumably even the earlier lousy process scheduler could handle that ok. -- Andrew Piskorski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.piskorski.com/
