3 ms·
I don't see why you need to wait for that. You already know the memory usage for 64-bit, and you implied elsewhere in this thread that memory usage is the key
by marvy 6y ago
I don't see why you need to wait for that. You already know the memory usage for 64-bit, and you implied elsewhere in this thread that memory usage is the key metric that makes these things cheaper than kernel threads. So you should be able to give an order of magnitude guesstimate even if no 32-bit port is in the works yet. Or no?
- pron 6y agoOK, so let's see. Suppose you have 2GB available for threads, and you want a million threads. This leaves 2KB per thread. Can 2KB suffice for a thread? Sure, for some. Could most threads take up less than 2KB? Probably not. Right now the representation of the stack in RAM is not very efficient, but it could be made much more so. If anyone wants to port to 32 bit and that turns out to be a problem, then I guess improving the stack representation would become a higher priority.
- marvy 6y agoThanks! I think that answers my question. Since kernel threads will likely have 64KB stacks or even more, this is still a huge win, even for 32-bit code I guess.