From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 14 22:49:01 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9ACF16A4CE; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 22:49:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD46C43D2D; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 22:49:01 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mux@freebsd.org) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1920) id AB5B85C9D6; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 14:49:01 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 23:49:01 +0100 From: Maxime Henrion To: Joe Marcus Clarke Message-ID: <20050214224901.GC61763@elvis.mu.org> References: <421104E5.6040705@marcuscom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <421104E5.6040705@marcuscom.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i cc: John-Mark Gurney cc: src-committers@freebsd.org cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org cc: Alfred Perlstein cc: Scott Long cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org cc: Daniel Eischen Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libpthread/thread thr_attr_init.c thr_init.c thr_private.h thr_stack.c X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 22:49:02 -0000 Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: > Daniel Eischen wrote: > | On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Scott Long wrote: > | > | > |>Daniel Eischen wrote: > |> > |> > |>>>* Joe Marcus Clarke [050213 20:30] wrote: > |>>> > |>>> > |>>>>This works for all threads but the initial thread. Gstreamer uses this > |>>>>thread for most of its operations. That stack size was set to be 1 MB > |>>>>when gstreamer really wanted 2. For all other thread problems, yes, I > |>>>>used pthread_attr_setstacksize() as the solution. > |>>> > |>>>Can't you wrap main and bounce into it with a thread that has been > |>>>created using pthread_attr_setstacksize()? > |>> > |>>Exactly! > |> > |>Again, I think that you have to look at the problem of supporting apps > |>that are written in a linux-centric way by authors who aren't interested > |>in merging back changes that complicate the code. > | > | > | I (think) we're talking about existing patches to ports. > | > | > | The simple way get a bigger main thread stack is to create > | another thread with larger stack to run whatever main runs. > | There wasn't a need to have ports with reduced functionality > | just because the main thread's stack wasn't large enough. > | > > I couldn't find an easy way to do that with cothreads in gstreamer. > However, this is exactly what I did with other ports. > > | > | > | We have a larger default stacksize for the main thread, so > | this should solve any related problems that ports had. > | > > Yep, and I'm happy to have it (don't get me wrong). However, I was > hoping to have a way to know when it was safe to remove at least the > gstreamer hack, and that's why I asked for the __FreeBSD_version bump. I entirely understand this and when I asked you why you weren't using pthread_attr_setstacksize() it was out of curiosity. Anyways, I'm surprised there's still an argument about this. __FreeBSD_version bumps are cheap, and if it can help reduce the maintainance burden of a port, I'm all for it. Cheers, Maxime