From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 13:36:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 13:36:26 -0400 Received: from intranet.resilience.com ([209.245.157.33]:54434 "EHLO intranet.resilience.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 13:36:12 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20010619090956.R3089@work.bitmover.com> In-Reply-To: <3B2F769C.DCDB790E@kegel.com> <20010619090956.R3089@work.bitmover.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 10:36:00 -0700 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Jonathan Lundell Subject: Re: Alan Cox quote? (was: Re: accounting for threads) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org At 9:09 AM -0700 2001-06-19, Larry McVoy wrote: >Don't you think it is funny that Sun doesn't publish numbers comparing >their thread performance to process performance? Sure, you can find >context switch benchmarks where they have user level switching going on >but those are a red herring. The real numbers you want are the kernel >level context switches and those are just as expensive as the process >context switch numbers. Sun (or at least SPARC) is a bit of a special case, though. SPARC's register-window architecture makes thread-switching (not to mention recursion) significantly more expensive than on most other architectures. -- /Jonathan Lundell.