Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 11:20:15 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threads stuff - reality check.. Message-ID: <199911291820.LAA19768@mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <19991129144125.C7E121CC6@overcee.netplex.com.au> References: <19991129144125.C7E121CC6@overcee.netplex.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I'd hate to ruin a good pie-in-the-sky session on the design of the killer > threads system and all, but I kinda wonder if we're aiming too hight to start > with? > > Wouldn't it be better to put the pieces that we already have together and > make something in time for 4.0 that runs with better concurrency than we > have now? ie: perhaps based on Richard's native linuxthreads port? Last I heard, this work was 'unacceptable' to be added to FreeBSD, similar to the old 'shared library' implementation work. Unless we had a N:M threading model, there was a general consensus from 'those in positions of authority' that we shouldn't be using the 'simple' method at all. I can go dig up the reference if desired. I agree with you that a 'poor' solution would be better than no solution. (However, the poor solution appears to work pretty darn good given Richard's recent postings on the benchmarks he's seeing...) Nate 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?199911291820.LAA19768>