| On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 04:53:46PM -0600, Corey Minyard wrote:
| ...
| > I would disagree. One thread per connection is easier to conceptually
| > understand. In my experience, an event-driven model (which is what you
| > end up with if you use one or a few threads) is actually easier to
| > correctly implement and it tends to make your code more modular and
| > portable.
|
| An old thing from early annals of computer science (I browsed Knuth's
| "The Art" again..) is called Coroutine.
|
| Gives you "one thread per connection" programming model, but without
| actual multiple scheduling threads in the kernel side.
|
| Simplest coroutine implementations are truly simple.. Pagefull of C.
| Knuth shows it with very few MIX (assembly) instructions.
|
| Throwing in non-blocking socket/filedescriptor access, and in event
| of "EAGAIN", coroutine-yielding to some other coroutine, does complicate
| things, naturally.
|
| Good coder finds balance in between various methods, possibly uses
| both coroutine "userspace threads", and actual kernel threads.
|
| Doing coroutine library all in portable C (by means of setjmp()/longjmp())
| is possible, but not very efficient. A bit of assembly helps a lot.
|
| > -Corey
|
| /Matti Aarnio
| -
Davide Libenzi (epoll) likes and discusses coroutines on one of his
web pages: http://www.xmailserver.org/linux-patches/nio-improve.html
(search for /coroutine/)
-- ~Randy- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/