From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Apr 27 13:14:12 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns.yogotech.com (ns.yogotech.com [206.127.123.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 325A837B423 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:14:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nate@yogotech.com) Received: from nomad.yogotech.com (nomad.yogotech.com [206.127.123.131]) by ns.yogotech.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA24832; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 14:10:40 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from nate@nomad.yogotech.com) Received: (from nate@localhost) by nomad.yogotech.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA19524; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 14:10:38 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from nate) From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15081.53821.755743.746621@nomad.yogotech.com> Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 14:10:37 -0600 (MDT) To: Alfred Perlstein Cc: Daniel Eischen , Nate Williams , Matt Dillon , Julian Elischer , Arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: KSE threading support (first parts) In-Reply-To: <20010427130826.G18676@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <15081.50170.297579.938254@nomad.yogotech.com> <20010427130826.G18676@fw.wintelcom.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 12) "Channel Islands" XEmacs Lucid Reply-To: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams) Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > > > Well, that's complete bullshit. KSE's are extremely short-running > > > > affairs in kernel mode, especially when you consider the most likely > > > > asynchronizing case (a simple blocking situation that will most commonly > > > > be in a read() or write()). > > > > > > Not necessarily. My experience with developing and running applications > > > on Solaris says that having multiple KSE's/process is a *huge* win. > > > > You do know that the proposed implementation isn't quite like > > Solaris (KSEs don't get their own quantum). You better holler > > if you want it ;-) > > There's two things on the issue that I'd like to bring up. > > The concepts are cool, however the implementation you guys are > discussion really hurt my head, not in a bad way, but conceptually > the concepts look quite daunting. Kudos if you guys get it done > though! > > Being able to have threads used in a "this application wants to > utilize _all_ available system reasources" meaning if you have > more than one processor, I want to see mysql, apache, whatever > using it (by default!). If your model doesn't include this then > please don't bother continuing, the stability issues versus the > gain don't work for me at all. Having 'serialized' KSE's (which Matt wants) means that an application will be *UNABLE* to use all of the system resources, because only one thread in threaded application (apache, mysql, etc..) is allowed to run at one time, no matter how many CPU's are there. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message