Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Perl-Sensitive Sunglasses
 
PerlMonks  

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

by sundialsvc4 (Abbot)
on Aug 16, 2015 at 20:51 UTC ( #1138778=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^3: Disadvantage of not supporting pthreads in perl and how perl overcomes? (cores)
in thread Disadvantage of not supporting pthreads in perl and how perl overcomes?

Actually, clarification is needed here:   this statement could be interpreted incorrectly in the case of the Linux environment, where the term “kernel thread” customarily refers specifically to privileged threads which are “part of the kernel itself.”   Perl, of course, does not use this facility ... neither does any other user-land program.

The intended meaning of your statement, of course, is entirely correct:   the Perl interpreter uses the native thread-handling capabilities of the underlying operating system.

  • Comment on 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 (Pope) on Aug 16, 2015 at 20:54 UTC

      BUK wrote:

      Bullshit! As normal. Why do you bother?

      Presumably to get an education a link at a time from you.

Re^5: Disadvantage of not supporting pthreads in perl and how perl overcomes? (cores)
by BrowserUk (Pope) 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!
      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.

        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!

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1138778]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others avoiding work at the Monastery: (10)
As of 2019-10-15 20:33 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    Notices?