From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Nov 29 7:18:14 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 492E0150E0 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 07:18:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA20025 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 16:18:10 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id QAA64186 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 16:18:07 +0100 (MET) Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [216.240.41.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2483B15033 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 07:18:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id HAA05245; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 07:17:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 07:17:43 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <199911291517.HAA05245@apollo.backplane.com> To: Peter Wemm Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threads stuff - reality check.. References: <19991129144125.C7E121CC6@overcee.netplex.com.au> Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG :I'd hate to ruin a good pie-in-the-sky session on the design of the killer :threads system and all, but I kinda wonder if we're aiming too hight to start :with? : :Wouldn't it be better to put the pieces that we already have together and :make something in time for 4.0 that runs with better concurrency than we :have now? ie: perhaps based on Richard's native linuxthreads port? : :Most of the pieces are there, but it needs work to tidy up the loose ends :and bring it up to date, and probably some debugging to get it to work :properly. There isn't a chance in hell that the Ultimate Threads are going :to be ready for 4.0, but we have got a pretty good shot at doing an :intermediate version that's at least comparable to what Linux does. Things :like squid etc really hurt without threads with blocking support, and it :will be a damn shame to miss the opportunity to have an alternative to :uthreads in 4.0. Most of the work is already done after all. It doesn't :take much to get the kit from http://lt.tar.com/ to compile and :pretty much work. : :Many of the primatives and infrastructure would be *directly* applicable to the :new threads - eg: reentrancy support in libc etc. : :Cheers, :-Peter Heh heh. Good point. Doing this would also give us an infrastructure to test against as changes are made. -Matt Matthew Dillon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message