Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:52:27 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> To: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com>, java@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Java and libc/libpthread Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010306134458.26948A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <15013.11891.57267.160163@nomad.yogotech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Nate Williams wrote:
> > > > I'm currently working on an NxN libpthread implementation as
> > > > an interim solution until we get KSEs. The goal is to get
> > > > this done before 5.0.
> > >
> > > How is this different from the current implementation?
> >
> > File descriptors will not be made non-blocking like they are
> > currently in libc_r. When a thread blocks on I/O, it _really_
> > blocks -- no other threads will be scheduled within that
> > [rfork_thread'd/cloned] process.
>
> So, reversing the logic ('not be made non-blocking'), file descriptors
> will be made blocking?
Right, err, well, they're whatever the application decides to set
them to.
> This doesn't seem like progress, but I may not
> understand the implications.
Some folks find that our libc_r doesn't scale very well for their
applications and that linuxthreads (under Linux) perform much,
much, better. libc_r will still be around for folks to use; this
will be a separate library (libpthread).
Solaris 8 provides /usr/lib/lwp/libpthread that provides (by
default) a library tailored for NxN. They (Sun) found that it
performed better for Java threads.
> > Other PTHREAD_SCOPE_SYSTEM
> > [rfork_thread] threads will continue to run.
>
> So, you're going to create a system similar to Linux-threads, but with a
> more BSD-like license?
Right.
--
Dan Eischen
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-java" 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.3.91.1010306134458.26948A-100000>