From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 18 05:56:10 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 702F516A415; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 05:56:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org) Received: from mail.ntplx.net (mail.ntplx.net [204.213.176.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D30CF43CA2; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 05:56:09 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org) Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11]) by mail.ntplx.net (8.13.8/8.13.8/NETPLEX) with ESMTP id kBI4uAEW025354; Sun, 17 Dec 2006 23:56:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 23:56:10 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net To: Peter Edwards In-Reply-To: <200612160900.54707.davidxu@freebsd.org> Message-ID: References: <34cb7c840612151000s4a3e1f2dvd71a60d66cf7c4be@mail.gmail.com> <200612160900.54707.davidxu@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Message whitelisted by DRAC access database, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (mail.ntplx.net [204.213.176.10]); Sun, 17 Dec 2006 23:56:10 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.ntplx.net) Cc: David Xu , freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: libpthread problem + possible solution X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Daniel Eischen List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 05:56:10 -0000 On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, David Xu wrote: > On Saturday 16 December 2006 04:11, Daniel Eischen wrote: >> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Peter Edwards wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I've a problem when a process uses: >>> libpthread >>> detached threads >>> mixed bound/unbound threads >>> suspended threads (a la pthread_resume_np()) >>> >>> whereby some newly created suspended threads don't get scheduled. >>> I think I've tracked it down, so if someone could review the >>> reasoning, I'd be grateful. >> >> I'm away for a few days, so I'd appreciate you waiting until >> early next week -- unless David Xu looks at it and gives it >> the ok. > I will review it. I looked at the patch and it looks OK to me. Go ahead and commit unless David had some comments to it that I haven't seen. -- DE