Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 17:52:19 -0400 From: Miles Nordin <carton@Ivy.NET> To: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: pthread_mutex_timedlock on sparc64 Message-ID: <oqu08nhq3w.fsf@castrovalva.Ivy.NET> In-Reply-To: <20060420210620.GA29933@xor.obsecurity.org> (Kris Kennaway's message of "Thu, 20 Apr 2006 17:06:20 -0400") References: <001801c66372$a032e770$2522630a@t22> <20060419054116.GA39394@xor.obsecurity.org> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0604190835400.1870@sea.ntplx.net> <20060420074713.Y52948@hades.admin.frm2> <20060420182331.GA26174@xor.obsecurity.org> <oqk69khvsx.fsf@castrovalva.Ivy.NET> <20060420204114.GA29490@xor.obsecurity.org> <oq64l4ht5o.fsf@castrovalva.Ivy.NET> <20060420205340.GA29736@xor.obsecurity.org> <oqzmiggdw4.fsf@castrovalva.Ivy.NET> <20060420210620.GA29933@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--pgp-sign-Multipart_Thu_Apr_20_17:52:19_2006-1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>>>>> "kk" == Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> writes:
kk> In practise libthr is the fastest thread package, although
kk> there must still be some reason we don't make it the default.
thanks for the answers. makes sense, I think I've finally got it.
For those forced to read all my noise today that haven't already heard
this 1:1 vs MxN thing debated to death, this is the last thing I read
about it:
http://www.sun.com/software/whitepapers/solaris9/multithread.pdf
``This is not to say that a good implementation of MxN model is
impossible, but simply that a good 1:1 implementation is probably
sufficient. This paper does not attempt a discussion of the
relative merits of the MxN and 1:1 threading models. The basic
thesis is that the quality of an implementation is often more
important.''
The context is, a bunch of papers were published since 1993 showing
that MxN threads were the most performant, and FreeBSD kse, Solaris
threads between 2.6 and 2.8, threads in OSF/1 (I think the kse guys
cited some Digital paper?), and NetBSD Scheduler Activations are all
based on the design in the original paper cited at the end of kse(2).
Sun scrapped scheduler activations in Solaris 2.9. They had to write
the above advertisement PDF to convince people who'd read all that
research since '93 that the 1:1 threads really were performant, and
that they didn't just wuss out after too many bugs and revert to a
slow, obvious EnTee/Linux style thread subsystem.
--pgp-sign-Multipart_Thu_Apr_20_17:52:19_2006-1
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (NetBSD)
iQCVAwUAREgCk4nCBbTaW/4dAQKo3AP/ZLkaF4hrOg74UihbtyAUWNgetlr5hFpK
0JPFcBDGoSaeV2pWMH3KHYs1CaL35mW+Qjodd0i9x8fLMoPGpD/Us0+AuRc2XvwS
ChtDTh78qh2RJz4wlOgTYPCdVwpTimy1LDWGuCj7vI2EZFqsRyPUDHISTy64TvgO
ossi4Y6v5FM=
=ciua
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--pgp-sign-Multipart_Thu_Apr_20_17:52:19_2006-1--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?oqu08nhq3w.fsf>