From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Nov 29 10:20:44 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 36759150B6 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 10:20:39 -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 TAA22262 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 19:20:38 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id TAA65240 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 19:20:37 +0100 (MET) Received: from ns.mt.sri.com (ns.mt.sri.com [206.127.79.91]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A02E314D96 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 10:20:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nate@mt.sri.com) Received: from mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100]) by ns.mt.sri.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA10243; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 11:20:16 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from nate@rocky.mt.sri.com) Received: by mt.sri.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA19768; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 11:20:15 -0700 Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 11:20:15 -0700 Message-Id: <199911291820.LAA19768@mt.sri.com> From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Peter Wemm Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threads stuff - reality check.. In-Reply-To: <19991129144125.C7E121CC6@overcee.netplex.com.au> References: <19991129144125.C7E121CC6@overcee.netplex.com.au> X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Reply-To: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams) Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > 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