I like request/servers and state machines. I also think that there
may be some smart ways to fold multiple threads into one. And there is
nothing wrong with userspace threading libraries.
> i have to admit that there's an inherent simplicity in using one thread
> per line, and for the more critical systems it's the simplicity that
There is a simplicity acquired by pushing the complexity to somewhere else.
> matters alot. One process per line would be even nicer - but that has a
> much higher resource footprint. While it could all be rewritten into a
> IRQ-driven state-machine as well, i dont think that is economic nor
> manageable for every case. Guess why Apache is still using the model of
> threads/processes, with a serial workflow done by them, and not the model
> of an async state-machine that TUX uses.
Because Linux does not provide an easy and highly efficient API for
building state machines and because even if it did, a crappy threads
model that runs on NT as well as Linux is more attractive.
> > I can see why people want this: they have huge ugly systems that they
> > would like to port to Linux with as little effort as possible. But it's
> > not free for the OS either.
> i believe if you do not see the dangers of O(N^2) algorithms then you
> should not do RT coding. While it's not at all the goal of the patch i
> sent, with some effort we can make Linux to behave in an RT-correct way if
> a subset of APIs are used and drivers are carefully controlled.
Just for information, don't try to apply asymptotic analysis blindly to
-- --------------------------------------------------------- Victor Yodaiken Finite State Machine Labs: The RTLinux Company. www.fsmlabs.com www.rtlinux.com
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/