Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 00:49:49 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> To: Chuck Robey <chuckr@picnic.mat.net> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com>, Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, jasone@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threads Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.991124002952.22137A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9911240001580.20163-100000@picnic.mat.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 24 Nov 1999, Chuck Robey wrote: > OK, then let me ask another question: are we at all concerned about maybe > following an already established thread API, or are we going to create our > own? Things like user threads probably could work as then are now (albeit > perhaps with only minor changes in performance) and stuff with runtimes > like Java wouldn't care, but big programs like XFree86 and Netscape, and > specially made daemons trying to do things like mass factoring, > that are going to really want to manipulate real concurrency levels, > they're going to have to be aware of our real underlying API, so making a > unique one will complicate a lot of lives. IMHO, we should stick to the POSIX and perhaps SSv2 standards. We shouldn't be rolling our own non-standard interfaces unless there's a very good reason to. POSIX provides a way to set concurrency levels (pthread_setconcurrency) as well as creating PTHREAD_SCOPE_SYSTEM threads which should compete for processor time with all the other scope system threads in the system. It might be good to see what Java and other systems need from a threads library. Is a fully compliant POSIX threading environment enough? Dan Eischen eischen@vigrid.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SUN.3.91.991124002952.22137A-100000>