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

Ingo Molnar
2007-02-27T08:35:38Z

* Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru> wrote:

> > > 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.
>
> I know.
> But it is rare case for the most situations, when things do not block,
> so I called it micro-thread, since it spawns a new thread (get from
> preallocated pool) for parallel processing.

ugh. Because 'it spawns a new thread from a preallocated pool' you are
arbitrarily renaming threadlets to 'micro-threads'?? The kernel could be
using a transparent thread pool for ordinary pthread recycling itself
(and will possibly do so in the future) - that does not make them a
micro-thread one iota. So please stop calling them micro-threads,
threadlets are a distinctly separate concept ...

( And i guess you should know it perfectly well from my past mails in
this thread that i dont like micro-thread concepts at all, so are you
perhaps calling threadlets 'micro-threads' intentionally, just to
force a predictably negative reaction from me? Maybe i should start
renaming your code too and refer to kevents as 'kpoll'? That too makes
absolutely zero sense. This is getting really silly. )

Ingo