linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kip Macy <kmacy@netapp.com>
To: ognen@gene.pbi.nrc.ca
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: threading question
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 12:06:40 -0700 (PDT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10106121200330.20809-100000@orbit-fe.eng.netapp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0106121213570.24593-100000@gene.pbi.nrc.ca>

This may sound like flamebait, but its not. Linux threads are basically
just processes that share the same address space. Their performance is
measurably worse than it is on most commercial Unixes and FreeBSD.
They are not, or at least two years ago, were not POSIX compliant
(they behaved badly with respect to signals). The impoverished
implementation of threads is not an accidental oversight, threads are not
looked upon favorably by most of the core linux kernel hackers. A quote
from Larry McVoy's home page attributed to Alan Cox illustrates this
reasonably well: "A computer is a state machine. Threads are for people
who can't program state machines." Sorry for not being more helpful.

		-Kip


On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 ognen@gene.pbi.nrc.ca wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I am a summer student implementing a multi-threaded version of a very
> popular bioinformatics tool. So far it compiles and runs without problems
> (as far as I can tell ;) on Linux 2.2.x, Sun Solaris, SGI IRIX and Compaq
> OSF/1 running on Alpha. I have ran a lot of timing tests compared to the
> sequential version of the tool on all of these machines (most of them are
> dual-CPU, although I am also running tests on 12-CPU Solaris and 108 CPU
> SGI IRIX). On dual-CPU machines the speedups are as follows: my version
> is 1.88 faster than the sequential one on IRIX, 1.81 times on Solaris,
> 1.8 times on OSF/1, 1.43 times on Linux 2.2.x and 1.52 times on Linux 2.4
> kernel. Why are the numbers on Linux machines so much lower? It is the
> same multi-threaded code, I am not using any tricks, the code basically
> uses PTHREAD_CREATE_DETACHED and PTHREAD_SCOPE_SYSTEM and the thread stack
> size is set to 8K (but the numbers are the same with larger/smaller stack
> sizes).
> 
> Is there anything I am missing? Is this to be expected due to Linux way of
> handling threads (clone call)? I am just trying to explain the numbers and
> nothing else comes to mind....
> 
> Best regards,
> Ognen Duzlevski
> -- 
> ognen@gene.pbi.nrc.ca
> Plant Biotechnology Institute
> National Research Council of Canada
> Bioinformatics team
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 


  parent reply	other threads:[~2001-06-12 19:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2001-06-12 18:24 ognen
2001-06-12 18:39 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-06-12 18:57 ` from dmesg: kernel BUG at inode.c:486 Olivier Sessink
2001-06-12 18:58 ` threading question Christoph Hellwig
2001-06-12 19:07   ` ognen
2001-06-12 19:15     ` Kip Macy
2001-06-12 19:29       ` Christoph Hellwig
2001-06-12 19:15     ` Christoph Hellwig
2001-06-13 12:20     ` Kurt Garloff
2001-06-13 13:35       ` J . A . Magallon
2001-06-13 14:17         ` Philips
2001-06-13 15:06           ` ognen
2001-06-12 21:44   ` Davide Libenzi
2001-06-12 21:48     ` ognen
2001-06-14 18:15       ` Alan Cox
2001-06-14 22:42         ` threading question (results after thread pooling) ognen
2001-06-14 23:00           ` Mike Castle
2001-06-12 21:58     ` threading question Albert D. Cahalan
2001-06-12 23:48       ` J . A . Magallon
2001-06-12 19:06 ` Kip Macy [this message]
2001-06-12 19:14   ` Alexander Viro
2001-06-12 19:25     ` Russell Leighton
2001-06-12 23:27       ` Mike Castle
2001-06-13 17:31   ` bert hubert
2001-06-14  6:45     ` Helge Hafting
2001-06-14 18:28   ` Alan Cox
2001-06-14 19:01     ` bert hubert
2001-06-14 19:22       ` Russell Leighton
2001-06-15 11:29       ` Anil Kumar
2001-06-14 23:05     ` J . A . Magallon
2001-06-16 14:16     ` Michael Rothwell
2001-06-16 15:19       ` Alan Cox
2001-06-16 18:33         ` Russell Leighton
2001-06-16 19:06         ` Michael Rothwell
2001-06-16 21:30           ` Coroutines [was Re: threading question] Russell Leighton
2001-06-12 22:41 ` threading question Pavel Machek
2001-06-13 19:05 Hubertus Franke
     [not found] <fa.f6da6av.agod3u@ifi.uio.no>
     [not found] ` <fa.e54jbkv.kg4r99@ifi.uio.no>
2001-06-16 22:22   ` Dan Maas

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=Pine.GSO.4.10.10106121200330.20809-100000@orbit-fe.eng.netapp.com \
    --to=kmacy@netapp.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=ognen@gene.pbi.nrc.ca \
    --subject='Re: threading question' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).