From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751547AbXB0KiO (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Feb 2007 05:38:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751549AbXB0KiO (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Feb 2007 05:38:14 -0500 Received: from relay.2ka.mipt.ru ([194.85.82.65]:36530 "EHLO 2ka.mipt.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751542AbXB0KiM (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Feb 2007 05:38:12 -0500 Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 13:37:12 +0300 From: Evgeniy Polyakov To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Davide Libenzi , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linus Torvalds , Arjan van de Ven , Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , Alan Cox , Ulrich Drepper , Zach Brown , "David S. Miller" , Suparna Bhattacharya , Jens Axboe , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: threadlets as 'naive pool of threads', epoll, some measurements Message-ID: <20070227103711.GD23170@2ka.mipt.ru> References: <20070225213420.GA10195@elte.hu> <20070226104507.GA18470@elte.hu> <20070226114858.GA28836@elte.hu> <20070226122521.GA19039@2ka.mipt.ru> <20070226125054.GA6997@elte.hu> <20070226143201.GB31629@2ka.mipt.ru> <20070226202338.GA23357@elte.hu> <20070227081611.GB16295@2ka.mipt.ru> <20070227082757.GA23617@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070227082757.GA23617@elte.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (2ka.mipt.ru [0.0.0.0]); Tue, 27 Feb 2007 13:37:27 +0300 (MSK) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 09:27:57AM +0100, Ingo Molnar (mingo@elte.hu) wrote: > > * Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > > > > > Enough, you say micro-thread design is superior - ok, that is your > > > > point. > > > > > > note that threadlets are not 'micro-threads'. A threadlet is more of > > > an 'optional thread' (as i mentioned it earlier): whenever it does > > > anything that makes it distinct from a plain function call, it's > > > converted into a separate thread by the kernel. Otherwise it behaves > > > like a plain function call and returns. > > > > I know. > > But it is rare case for the most situations, when things do not block, > > so I called it micro-thread, since it spawns a new thread (get from > > preallocated pool) for parallel processing. > > ugh. Because 'it spawns a new thread from a preallocated pool' you are > arbitrarily renaming threadlets to 'micro-threads'?? The kernel could be > using a transparent thread pool for ordinary pthread recycling itself > (and will possibly do so in the future) - that does not make them a > micro-thread one iota. So please stop calling them micro-threads, > threadlets are a distinctly separate concept ... > > ( And i guess you should know it perfectly well from my past mails in > this thread that i dont like micro-thread concepts at all, so are you > perhaps calling threadlets 'micro-threads' intentionally, just to > force a predictably negative reaction from me? Maybe i should start > renaming your code too and refer to kevents as 'kpoll'? That too makes > absolutely zero sense. This is getting really silly. ) I already think about renaming kevent aio, since it uses kaio name, which you frequently reference too, but you definitely did not think about kevent. And out of curiosity, how masichistic I would look if I intentinally want to receive negative reaction from you :) As far as you can recall, in all syslet related threads I was always for them, and definitely against micro-threads, but when we come to the land of IO processing using event driven model - here I can not agree with you. So, ok, no micro-thread name. > Ingo -- Evgeniy Polyakov