Re:Benchmarking OS primitives
by arghwhat on Thursday March 22, 2018 @06:14AM
(#16647307)
You seem to be distracted by terms rather than their meaning.
The primary difference between Windows and Linux (which is the topic at hand, not other Unixes or esoteric OS's) is in terminology. A Windows "process" is not the same as a Linux "process". A Windows "thread" is not the same as a Linux "thread".
However, a Windows "execution resource" ("thread") is quite identical to a Linux "execution resource" ("process"), or the macOS "execution resource" ("Mach task", not "process" or "thread").
Windows and Linux also have "execution resource groups", in the form of "process" and "thread group"/"parent process", respectively. They are implemented slightly differently (dedicated device vs. "master" execution resource), but the end-result is similar.
These constructs implement identical functionality for all intents and purposes (the differences are just in some minor limitations and API choices). The scheduler only operates on the execution resource, but might look at the execution resource group when making scheduling decisions. This is shared between all the OS's, and is a minor implementation detail that can change between releases.
The distinction between "thread-based" and "process-based" does not exist. Linux is a heck of a lot faster to create "resource groups" than Windows is, but that is due to better code, not fundamental design limitations.
(Of course, an esoteric OS might implement something entirely different from the concepts of "processes" and "threads", but that's a fun discussion for another day—the important thing is the contemporary OS's are all the same.)
The primary difference between Windows and Linux (which is the topic at hand, not other Unixes or esoteric OS's) is in terminology. A Windows "process" is not the same as a Linux "process". A Windows "thread" is not the same as a Linux "thread".
However, a Windows "execution resource" ("thread") is quite identical to a Linux "execution resource" ("process"), or the macOS "execution resource" ("Mach task", not "process" or "thread").
Windows and Linux also have "execution resource groups", in the form of "process" and "thread group"/"parent process", respectively. They are implemented slightly differently (dedicated device vs. "master" execution resource), but the end-result is similar.
These constructs implement identical functionality for all intents and purposes (the differences are just in some minor limitations and API choices). The scheduler only operates on the execution resource, but might look at the execution resource group when making scheduling decisions. This is shared between all the OS's, and is a minor implementation detail that can change between releases.
The distinction between "thread-based" and "process-based" does not exist. Linux is a heck of a lot faster to create "resource groups" than Windows is, but that is due to better code, not fundamental design limitations.
(Of course, an esoteric OS might implement something entirely different from the concepts of "processes" and "threads", but that's a fun discussion for another day—the important thing is the contemporary OS's are all the same.)