Re^4: Disadvantage of not supporting pthreads in perl and how perl overcomes? (cores)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Disadvantage of not supporting pthreads in perl and how perl overcomes? (cores) by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Aug 16, 2015 at 20:54 UTC
the term “kernel thread” customarily refers specifically to privileged threads which are “part of the kernel itself.” Bullshit! As normal. Why do you bother? Update: "Processes, kernel threads, user threads, and fibers: Scheduling can be done at the kernel level or user level, and multitasking can be done preemptively or cooperatively. This yields a variety of related concepts. At the kernel level, a process contains one or more kernel threads, which share the process's resources, such as memory and file handles – a process is a unit of resources, while a thread is a unit of scheduling and execution"	[reply]
Re^6: Disadvantage of not supporting pthreads in perl and how perl overcomes? (cores) by Anonymous Monk on Aug 20, 2015 at 21:32 UTC
BUK wrote: Bullshit! As normal. Why do you bother? Presumably to get an education a link at a time from you.	[reply]
Re^7: Disadvantage of not supporting pthreads in perl and how perl overcomes? (cores) by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Aug 21, 2015 at 02:40 UTC
Presumably to get an education a link at a time from you. You know, if that were true and he actually showed signs of progress; I wouldn't mind. With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday' Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I knew I was on the right track :) In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. I'm with torvalds on this Agile (and TDD) debunked I told'em LLVM was the way to go. But did they listen!	[reply]
Re^5: Disadvantage of not supporting pthreads in perl and how perl overcomes? (cores) by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Aug 17, 2015 at 19:32 UTC
Seems further clarification is needed here. Just because you did a google search for the term "kernel thread" and read this thread on SO where some blow-hard, died-in-the-wool nix freak misinterpreted (whether deliberately, or just through the blindness of zealotry), the question asked, and chose to waffle on about what should properly be termed 'system threads' or 'kernel mode threads'; that doesn't make my correct usage of the term 'kernel threads' require clarification. The term 'kernel threads' has been used to denote 'units of execution scheduled by the kernel scheduler', since at least 1985 where it was used in the specification for what was then called CP/DOS, and went on to become OS/2. I know, because I was charged with writing the first (IBM) test suite for them 1986; at a time when the only thread-safe IO were Beep( freq, duration ) and kbhit(). So the first version of my test program used single keystrokes to Create Suspend Resume Kill threads 1 to 9. And when running each thread identified itself by beeping at a different frequency. I'm fairly sure that the term "threads of execution" was fairly common-place in IBM OS/390 internals discussion prior to the CP/DOS specs; but I was only ever on the periphery of such discussions. The term 'kernel threading' as counter to 'user threading' falls out of the distinction between cooperative multitasking systems like Windows 3.1 and preemptive multitasking systems like OS/2 & Windows NT. The fact that nix zealots try to recast the language and origins of threading -- which only came to nix circa. 1994/5 -- because they hate the idea nix didn't invent every programming concept, is neither cause nor reason for qualifying the use of the proper terms in the proper context. Just as (for example) the word 'thread' means different things depending upon context: sewing circles; conversation; structured fora; and is used in all of them without qualification, so the term 'kernel threads' can be overloaded in different contexts and does not need qualification. With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday' Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I knew I was on the right track :) In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. I'm with torvalds on this Agile (and TDD) debunked I told'em LLVM was the way to go. But did they listen!	[reply]
Re^6: Disadvantage of not supporting pthreads in perl and how perl overcomes? (cores) by salva (Canon) on Aug 17, 2015 at 21:23 UTC
Thw Amiga OS, released around that time was completely and pervasively based on threads and IIRC, everything but the alíen standard libraries provided with C compilers were thread safe.	[reply]
Re^7: Disadvantage of not supporting pthreads in perl and how perl overcomes? (cores) by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Aug 17, 2015 at 22:22 UTC
Nice example. Though that is somewhat different in as much as the all the threads -- system, user, programs, drivers everything -- ran in the context of a single shared memory space. In effect, the entire single-user OS +everything that it ran was a single, multi-threaded process. With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday' Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I knew I was on the right track :) In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. I'm with torvalds on this Agile (and TDD) debunked I told'em LLVM was the way to go. But did they listen!	[reply]


laziness, impatience, and hubris
	PerlMonks