From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 15:18:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 15:18:10 -0400 Received: from hq2.fsmlabs.com ([209.155.42.199]:17679 "HELO hq2.fsmlabs.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 15:17:53 -0400 Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:14:28 -0600 From: Victor Yodaiken To: Matthew Kirkwood , Larry McVoy , Dan Kegel , ognen@gene.pbi.nrc.ca, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , laughing@shared-source.org Subject: Re: Alan Cox quote? (was: Re: accounting for threads) Message-ID: <20010620131428.B31012@hq2> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20010619095239.T3089@work.bitmover.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i Organization: FSM Labs Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 09:52:39AM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote: > I think the general thrust of us ``anti-thread'' people is that a few > are fine, a lot is stupid, and the model encourages a lot. It's just There is a huge academic research literature on how to prove that a large set of threads will all meet deadlines in a realtime system. Years ago I made a not-so-brilliant optimization to RTLinux scheduler that had an unanticipated side effect of only scheduling the first two threads created. Nobody noticed for months, because RT programmers know that more than 2 threads is almost always a design error. Not always though. (now we have regression tests so I could not make such an experiment again).