Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 00:44:40 -0600 (CST) From: Anthony Kimball <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 Message-ID: <14419.17281.862403.198050@avalon.east> References: <99Dec10.155600est.40337@border.alcanet.com.au> <Pine.BSF.4.10.9912100026210.16082-100000@picnic.mat.net> <199912102104.OAA21584@mt.sri.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?14419.17281.862403.198050>