From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Sep 19 21:10:17 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 2D17C37B401 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 21:10:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1AAF43E4A for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 21:10:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192) id A52CEAE2EF; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 21:10:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 21:10:15 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Daniel Eischen Cc: Bill Huey , freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: New Linux threading model Message-ID: <20020920041015.GW86737@elvis.mu.org> References: <20020920031423.GA3380@gnuppy.monkey.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i 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 * Daniel Eischen [020919 21:07] wrote: > On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Bill Huey wrote: > > > > > 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... > > I read some of this and some of it is exactly opposite of why > scheduler activations was made in the first place. They are > pushing all scheduling decisions and locking in to the kernel. > One of the points of scheduler activations is that the library > can make all scheduling decisions without need for having > the kernel involved. Well it is a step forward for threading on Linnex. :) Still not out of the fire yet, but good work nonetheless. -- -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message