Re: threadlets as 'naive pool of threads', epoll, some measurements

[Ingo Molnar]

* Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > no. Please read the evserver_threadlet.c code. There's no kevent in 
> > there. There's no epoll() in there. All that you can see there is 
> > the natural behavior of pure threadlets. And it's not a workload /I/ 
> > picked for threadlets - it is a workload, filesize, parallelism 
> > level and request handling function /you/ picked for 
> > "event-servers".
> 
> I know that there is no kevents there, that would be really strange if 
> you would test it in your environment after all that empty kevent 
> releases.

i havent got around figuring out the last v2.6.20 based kevent release, 
and your git tree is v2.6.21-rc1 based. Do you have some easy URL for me 
to fetch the last v2.6.20 kevent release?

> 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.

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/