From owner-freebsd-arch Sat Dec 11 22:45:13 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 E988A15149 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 22:45:02 -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 HAA20215 for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 07:44:59 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id HAA48076 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 07:44:59 +0100 (MET) Received: from poboxer.pobox.com (ferg5200-1-11.cpinternet.com [208.149.16.11]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DD21150EE for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 22:44:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from alk@poboxer.pobox.com) Received: (from alk@localhost) by poboxer.pobox.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id AAA33157; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 00:44:40 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from alk) From: Anthony Kimball MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 00:44:40 -0600 (CST) X-Face: \h9Jg:Cuivl4S*UP-)gO.6O=T]]@ncM*tn4zG);)lk#4|lqEx=*talx?.Gk,dMQU2)ptPC17cpBzm(l'M|H8BUF1&]dDCxZ.c~Wy6-j,^V1E(NtX$FpkkdnJixsJHE95JlhO 5\M3jh'YiO7KPCn0~W`Ro44_TB@&JuuqRqgPL'0/{):7rU-%.*@/>q?1&Ed Reply-To: alk@pobox.com To: nate@mt.sri.com Cc: chuckr@picnic.mat.net, peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Thread scheduling References: <99Dec10.155600est.40337@border.alcanet.com.au> <199912102104.OAA21584@mt.sri.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.43 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid Message-ID: <14419.17281.862403.198050@avalon.east> Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Quoth Nate Williams on Fri, 10 December: : > : > I can think of several ways for it to be done, so lets concentrate on : > whether it's needed or desireable. : : No and no. If any software relies on it, it's completely broken for : Uniprocessor machines, since they can't make any such guarantees. : Having multiple threads occuring simultaneous is an effeciency issue, : but should never be relied on for correct operation of the algorithms in : a general purpose computing platform. That doesn't mean that it isn't needed or desirable. Efficiency is needed and desirable, in general. (When efficiency hits zero, nothing ever gets done!) Of the three bids I know about for the ASCI 30 Teraflop machine, two are Linux bids. I can guarantee that the winning bid will coschedule threads. Doesn't the idea of the fastest single integrated computing system in the world running FreeBSD instead of Linux seem appealling? It's too late for the 30 Teraflop, but the 100 Teraflop follow-on... To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message