Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 12:09:45 -0700 From: Joe Kelsey <joe@zircon.seattle.wa.us> To: freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Contributing... Message-ID: <15238.42617.926667.683393@zircon.zircon.seattle.wa.us> In-Reply-To: <20010825025921.A49770@misty.eyesbeyond.com> References: <3B8688AA.6956F1BD@ideasandassociates.com> <20010825025921.A49770@misty.eyesbeyond.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Greg Lewis writes: > On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 01:02:34PM -0400, Tim Liddelow wrote: > > For native threads, has there been any consideration on the linuxthreads > > port? > > Yes. The problem is that this adds another dependency to the JDK and > presents us with some distribution problems due to its LGPL nature. > The gain is that you can utilise multiple CPUs, but this is still at > the expense of threads which appear to be quite a bit more "heavyweight" > than the native FreeBSD pthreads. Aside from the supposed GPL contamination, linuxthreads are severely broken and are likely to always be severely broken until someone there implements real threads. I have direct experience trying to use both linuxthreads and FreeBSD pthreads and the linux version fails misreably under heavy thread load (say more than 100 threads), whereas FreeBSD threads just keeps on ticking... The basic problem is that the so-called "threads" in linux are just process forks in which forks share memory areas. This is a miserable way to implement threads, but it is also a trivial hack for someone who doesn't want to really do it right. It also works for very simple cases, but again, I have direct experience showing how miserably it fails under load. /Joe To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-java" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15238.42617.926667.683393>