From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Sep 19 20:38: 3 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D97337B401 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 20:38:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gnuppy.monkey.org (wsip68-15-8-100.sd.sd.cox.net [68.15.8.100]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0566343E42 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 20:38:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from billh@gnuppy.monkey.org) Received: from billh by gnuppy.monkey.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 17sEFL-0000u3-00; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 20:14:23 -0700 Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 20:14:23 -0700 To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Cc: "Bill Huey (Hui)" Subject: New Linux threading model Message-ID: <20020920031423.GA3380@gnuppy.monkey.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i From: Bill Huey (Hui) Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Hello, I got this off of lkml: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=103248252713576&w=2 paper: http://people.redhat.com/drepper/nptl-design.pdf They basically went to (kept) a 1:1 threading model, but added a bunch of things to the kernel so that stuff like signal handling, pid, thread suspension via signal notification, etc... are all very conformant to Posix threading now. In their paper, they talk briefly about how they came to the decision that 1:1 is better than M:N and why they chose that against variants of M:N including scheduler activations, a cross process fast-path synchronization primitive called "futexes", etc... bill To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message