Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 12:05:07 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> Cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: libthr patch Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0402191201000.93099-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10402190804480.22901-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This brings up something that I think we should discuss with Mike.. Mike, the libthr kernel code has lots of code (e.g. in the scheduler) to make libthr implement 1:1 syste, scope threads. this is "silly" necause we designed the KSE based kernel framework to support 1:1 system scoep threads.. one just needs to allocate a KSEGROUP with each thread and then everything would be right automatically. Do you know teh reason that this was not done? do you know how muvch work it would be to do this? if it was it would allow both threading pacakges to follow the same cade paths (KSE can be compiled to run in 1:1 mode and does it this way) and you coukld as Dan suggested, use the infrastructure we already have for this sort of thing... Julian On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Mike Makonnen wrote: > > > Hello folks, > > > > The following patch stops libthr from using signals for syncronizng threads. > > I've tested it localy and have seen *really large* performance > > improvements in heavy thread/mutex contention situations. I'm interested > > in hearing your experiences. > > If you used KSEs, you could use kse_release() and kse_wakeup() :-) :-) > > -- > Dan > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-threads@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-threads-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0402191201000.93099-100000>