3 ms·

Basically yes. M:N just wasn't a good fit for the way applications used (and use) pthreads. For those that need pure CPU parallelism M:N is just useless overhea

Basically yes. M:N just wasn't a good fit for the way applications used (and use) pthreads. For those that need pure CPU parallelism M:N is just useless overhead, while highly concurrent applications were either using one process per request for simplicity and robustness, or directly building on top of poll/epoll/kqueue for performance. So, at least at that time, M:N and scheduler activation was a solution in search of a problem. It might still see a resurgence on one way or another.

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
But that's not what SA was about. Even with N:N architecture, if one kernel thread blocks (say, on I/O), the point is for the user-space scheduler to decide which thread should run next. The point was that the kernel scheduler cannot/should not understand the application thread scheduling requirements, and that when a kernel thread allocated to the task blocks, only user space can (correctly) decide what to do.