Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!lethe!yunexus!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!ub!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!spice.cs.cmu.edu!af
From: af@spice.cs.cmu.edu (Alessandro Forin)
Newsgroups: comp.os.mach
Subject: Re: Threads, Definition of
Message-ID: <12032@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: 20 Feb 91 17:41:59 GMT
References: <1476@pdxgate.UUCP> <21892@oolong.la.locus.com> <1991Feb20.011728.15702@cs.ubc.ca>
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 14


How comes noone thinks that maybe, just maybe, parallelism is
most appropriately discussed with a multiprocessor machine in mind ?
Fake parallelism does not speedup your programs, you know...

And as far as Mach is concerned, this whole debate is irrelevant:
the latest CThreads implementation lets you use any number of kernel
threads to map any number of Cthreads.  Pick your prey.

As for read(), Encore and OSF/1 (and probably others) have
a fully parallelized file system and networking code in their 2.5-based
kernels.  This is Unix, not Mach.

sandro-


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com