Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 16:26:18 -0500 (EST) From: "Geoffrey C. Speicher" <geoff@speicher.org> To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com> Cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 1:N threading Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.10304031620500.2892-100000@speicher.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10304031551410.9423-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Geoffrey C. Speicher wrote: > > > OK, so we've got 1:N threading (libc_r), 1:1 threading (thr), and M:N > > threading (KSE). Each model has its own merit depending on the > > application. > > > > However, it would still be nice if the 1:N model didn't block the whole > > process when a thread blocks. Is there any reason to hold onto a pure > ^ in the kernel. > > > userland implementation of 1:N? Can libc_r be implemented in terms of > > KSE? > > Libc_r will go bye-bye. The KSE library will give you 1:N > as long as you don't use pthread_setconcurrency() and don't > create any PTHREAD_SCOPE_PROCESS threads. Doh. I guess it would help if I reviewed the KSE project goals, hmm? :/ I lost sight of that whole userland piece of the project somewhere during last year... too much drinking, I guess. Thanks. Geoff
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.10304031620500.2892-100000>