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

Ingo Molnar
2007-02-26T20:31:33Z

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