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, 19 Sep 2002 22:12:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 22:12:40 -0400 Received: from bitmover.com ([192.132.92.2]:37765 "EHLO mail.bitmover.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 22:12:39 -0400 Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 19:17:39 -0700 From: Larry McVoy To: Rik van Riel Cc: Ulrich Drepper , linux-kernel Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Native POSIX Thread Library 0.1 Message-ID: <20020919191739.A25500@work.bitmover.com> Mail-Followup-To: Larry McVoy , Rik van Riel , Ulrich Drepper , linux-kernel References: <3D8A6EC1.1010809@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from riel@conectiva.com.br on Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 11:01:33PM -0300 X-MailScanner: Found to be clean Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 11:01:33PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Ulrich Drepper wrote: > > > Initial confirmations were test runs with huge numbers of threads. > > Even on IA-32 with its limited address space and memory handling > > running 100,000 concurrent threads was no problem at all, > > So, where did you put those 800 MB of kernel stacks needed for > 100,000 threads ? Come on, you and I normally agree, but 100,000 threads? Where is the need for that? More importantly, is there any realistic application that can use 100,000 threads where the kernel stack is 0 but the user level stack doesn't have exactly the same problem? The kernel can be perfect, i.e., cost zero, and you still have a problem. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm