From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Lee Chin" Subject: Re: debate on 700 threads vs asynchronous code Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 19:07:11 -0500 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20030124000711.98366.qmail@mail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: lm@bitmover.com, leechin@mail.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-newbie@vger.kernel.org Hi, Thanks for the rpely... my question was more so, with setcontext and swapcontext, I will still be messing with the data cache right? In otherwords, as long as I have an async system with out setcontext, I know I am good... but with it, havent I degraded to a threaded environment? Thanks Lee ----- Original Message ----- From: Larry McVoy Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:28:34 -0800 To: Lee Chin Subject: Re: debate on 700 threads vs asynchronous code > > b) Write an asycnhrounous system with only 2 or three threads where I manage the connections and stack (via setcontext swapcontext etc), which is progromatically a little harder > > > > Which way will yeild me better performance, considerng both approaches are implemented optimally? > > If this is a serious question, an async system will by definition do better. > You have either 700 stacks screwing up the data cache or 2-3 stacks nicely > fitting in the data cache. Ditto for instruction cache, etc. > -- > --- > Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup Meet Singles http://corp.mail.com/lavalife