From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Nov 2 6:42:18 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 368B4153E3 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 06:42:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA21491 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 15:42:03 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id PAA80223 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 15:42:03 +0100 (MET) Received: from smtp01.primenet.com (smtp01.primenet.com [206.165.6.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04CB0153FC for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 06:41:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rcarter@chomsky.Pinyon.ORG) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp01.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA10640; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 07:39:05 -0700 (MST) Received: from ip-26-042.prc.primenet.com(206.165.26.42), claiming to be "chomsky.pinyon.org" via SMTP by smtp01.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAU0aWRu; Tue Nov 2 07:38:56 1999 Received: from chomsky.Pinyon.ORG (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by chomsky.pinyon.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D0F23B; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 07:38:19 -0700 (MST) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.0 09/18/1999 To: Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threads models and FreeBSD. (Next Step) In-Reply-To: Message from Poul-Henning Kamp of "Tue, 02 Nov 1999 13:44:48 +0100." <25676.941546688@critter.freebsd.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 07:38:19 -0700 From: "Russell L. Carter" Message-Id: <19991102143819.5D0F23B@chomsky.pinyon.org> Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG %In message <381EDBCE.FD7FBA68@vigrid.com>, "Daniel M. Eischen" writes: % %>> >Disagree. I want lightweight processes to have their own quantum %>> >not limited (in total) to the parent process quantum. %>> %>> That would clearly kill the "lightweight" in "lightweight process"... %> %>That doesn't mean they each have to have the same quantum as a non-MT %>process. % %That has nothing to do with it. % %There is not much point in making a lightweight process facility %if the resulting processes are not lightweight. Then the application developer should choose libc_r threads. There isn't much point to doing this effort if the pthread_*sched* functions don't actually mean much in the global context. People building large scale distributed objects that are also high performance require fine grained schedulability of individual threads. I can provide references that demonstrate how low level thread scheduling architecture affect high level services. Solaris, HP, MVS, and Linux support this to varying degrees now. The RT-OSs more or less do, though some fail in surprising ways. Linux is surprisingly good. Put another way, cramming a process's threads into a single scheduling quanta significantly diminishes the suitability of FreeBSD as a platform for building high performance and/or RT CORBA apps. Regards, Russell %-- %Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member %phk@FreeBSD.ORG "Real hackers run -current on their laptop." %FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far! % % % % %To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org %with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message % To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message