| From: | |
| Date: | 21 Feb 2001 at 12:06:59 |
| Subject: | Re: Tasks vs. Threads |
Hi Stephen,
> Threads are often referred to as light weight processes (processes are
> the same as tasks) and are identical in many respects to real
> processes. However, they confer several advantages. The most
> important, is the reduced overhead on the operating system - the
> effort required to create a new process and to context switch is
> completely avoided..
>
> Instead, the parent process (threads are always controlled by a parent
> process) performs the thread context switching itself - or if you use
> pthreads or similar, the library code will do this. In other words,
> threads are switched within the time slice available to the parent
> process.
Ok, thanx for the explanation.
> I personally don't see the point of them on the Amiga, as the AmigaOSs
> scheduler works just great. The reason pthreads exists at all is
> because many UNIX implementations have "inefficient" schedulers (they
> do more work than they need to) and certain types of process benefit
> greatly from the reduced overhead of threads.
Just another thing, multi-processor ready programs are refered as
multi-threading programs, this sounds like you can open a new thread on
each different processor (just like I could open a Task on my 68k and
another on the PowerPC and make them run together), is this true?
Gabriele
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups
Click here for more details
http://us.click.yahoo.com/kWP7PD/pYNCAA/4ihDAA/d8AVlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/