From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Sep 20 1:28:35 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 A2AB837B401 for ; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 01:28:34 -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 48EC343E42 for ; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 01:28:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from billh@gnuppy.monkey.org) Received: from billh by gnuppy.monkey.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 17sJ9I-00017p-00; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 01:28:28 -0700 Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 01:28:28 -0700 To: Daniel Eischen Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG, "Bill Huey (Hui)" Subject: Re: New Linux threading model Message-ID: <20020920082828.GA4207@gnuppy.monkey.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 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 On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 12:07:15AM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote: > 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. I wasn't quite sure how to break this to them without being completely impolite. They did some measurements, but I'm curious how something like thread performance (context switching, blocking) in libc_r measures against their 1:1 model. It should be simple to write a test program to check it out and see what kind of result they get. bill To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message