Re: linux-kernel-digest V1 #4149

cd_smith@ou.edu
Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:04:58 -0500 (CDT)


On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Khimenko Victor wrote:
> Hmm. Why to limit it this way ? Why not have arbitrary ThreadGroups so you
> can have 10 threads in some http-database gateway to work with database,
> 10 different threads to work with network and all under ubrealla of the same
> process ?

I think that's going a little far. What do you gain from having thread
groups recognized by the kernel? You're obviously thinking of the Java
model, but Java uses them as an organizational tool that can be just as
easily (and cleanly) implemented in user space. Fact is, different
processes ("process clusters") will own threads (processes) that are
related in a lot of different ways to each other, NONE of which matter to
the kernel. Not even hierarchy makes much sense when threads (processes)
are that closely related - but we can ignore it. But introducing yet
another arbitrary organization like thread groups - that's messy to
implement in the kernel and does no one any good by being there - is
working backwards.

Chris Smith <cd_smith@ou.edu>

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