From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 3 15:22:25 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43F1737B405 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 15:22:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F54143F93 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 15:22:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com) Received: from pcnet1.pcnet.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.pcnet.com (8.12.8/8.12.1) with ESMTP id h33NMNBg000113; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 18:22:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (eischen@localhost)h33NMN6T000110; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 18:22:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 18:22:23 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen To: Terry Lambert In-Reply-To: <3E8CB7D3.A4B3CBF7@mindspring.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: "Geoffrey C. Speicher" cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 1:N threading X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 23:22:25 -0000 On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Terry Lambert wrote: > Daniel Eischen wrote: > > 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. > > > I think that maybe you need to get over the "fear factor" here. > > Specifically, it's probably time to commit a "libkse", the same > way that Jeff committed a "libthr", so that it doesn't directly > replace "libc_r", and leave people hanging over a cliff if it > has a bug. There already is a "libkse" committed. It's in src/lib/libpthread. It sorta works from what I understand (so far I've only run my locally modified version). My changes haven't been committed yet because I at least want to get it to the point that it can run most of the test programs (to be on-par with the current libpthread). David, Julian, and myself are working out some issues with signals, but that isn't currently hindering my progress. I am getting closer to be able to run some of the more complicated test programs. > Better to take an approach that doesn't piss people off, but gets > the code to a wider audience. > > Is this a possibility? The only thing that seems screwed up is > the signals processing. Jeff's code panic's the system with a > lock order reversal on exit processing, under some circumstances, > but it's tolerated because it didn't outright replace "libc_r", > and offer an alternative to "conservative" -CURRENT users. The patches are available: http://people.freebsd.org/~deischen/libpthread.diffs FYI, since this is a new mailing list, the above changes are meant to give libpthread M:N capability. I don't need testers; I have enough bugs that I know about to fix. -- Dan Eischen