From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 15:03:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 15:03:19 -0400 Received: from 20dyn128.com21.casema.net ([213.17.90.128]:1540 "HELO home.ds9a.nl") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 15:03:12 -0400 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 21:01:38 +0200 From: bert hubert To: Alan Cox Cc: Kip Macy , ognen@gene.pbi.nrc.ca, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: threading question Message-ID: <20010614210138.A15912@home.ds9a.nl> Mail-Followup-To: bert hubert , Alan Cox , Kip Macy , ognen@gene.pbi.nrc.ca, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To:

Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk on Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 07:28:32PM +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 07:28:32PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > There are really only two reasons for threaded programming. > > - Poor programmer skills/language expression of event handling The converse is that pthreads are: - Very easy to use from C at a reasonable runtime overhead It is very convenient for a userspace coder to be able to just start a function in a different thread. Now it might be so that a kernel is not there to provide ease of use for userspace coders but it is a factor. I see lots of people only using: pthread_create()/pthread_join() mutex_lock/unlock sem_post/sem_wait no signals My gut feeling is that you could implement this subset in a way that is both fast and right - although it would not be 'pthreads compliant'. Can anybody confirm this feeling? Regards, bert -- http://www.PowerDNS.com Versatile DNS Services Trilab The Technology People 'SYN! .. SYN|ACK! .. ACK!' - the mating call of the internet