From owner-freebsd-current Mon Aug 27 10:18:29 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from InterJet.elischer.org (c421509-a.pinol1.sfba.home.com [24.7.86.9]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9FDD37B407; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 10:18:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from elischer.org (InterJet.elischer.org [192.168.1.1]) by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA74259; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 10:26:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3B8A7D66.22469D03@elischer.org> Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 10:03:34 -0700 From: Julian Elischer X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT i386) X-Accept-Language: en, hu MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Baldwin , current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Headsup! KSE Nay-sayers speak up! References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG John Baldwin wrote: > > On 27-Aug-01 Julian Elischer wrote: > > I am ready to do my megga-commit to add the first stage of KSE-threading > > support > > to > > the kernel. If there is any argument as to the wisdom of this move, > > then this is the time to speak up! > > > > At this stage a commit would break alpha and ia64 until > > they are patched. From experience I can say that it's not a horrific > > change to the machine dependent code so patches PRE commit would be > > welcome. > > Just to get this out in the public: I for one think 5.x has enough changes in > it and would like for KSE to be postponed to 6.0-current and 6.0-release. I > know that I am in the minority on this, but wanted to say it anyways. It > doesn't mean I don't like the KSE work or anything like that (I've even helped > out on it some), I just think we have enough work in our basket. Also, I'll > point out that p4's merging abilities make tracking current relatively easy, > much more so than if Julian was maintaining a separate tree with this patch and > having to keep updating current and manually merge it all the time. > > well I expected this to some extent.. This is why I asked.. I want to get it out where it can be discussed. the same could also be said for full pre-emption and SMP-NG. It is also interestingto note that KSE isn't the only game in town. The new PTNG package looks interesting, using normal process rforking to generate a pthreads environment. (It's a rewrite, not a port of linux threads). All I have done is brought the kernel to a state where it is READY for work to break the 1:1 barrier. It is basically logically exactly the same kernel as in -current. I think it introduces far fewer logical changes than, say, the pre-emption code, or the locking code. I agree that we could wait. I don't however think we should. I'd rather have ONE broken period than two. At USENIX we agreed that if I got this done it would be committed and work could start to provide the facilities that Dan and Chris need for the Userland code to develop. Remember, that unless you turn this on, it's a very complicated NOP. What P4 does is really irrelevent because there are only 4 people using it.. (or is that 3?). It needs a distribution channel, and P4 isn't it. (at least not at the moment.) What it DOES do however is make your locking code more challenging. But that is going to have to be faced at some time.... -- +------------------------------------+ ______ _ __ | __--_|\ Julian Elischer | \ U \/ / hard at work in | / \ julian@elischer.org +------>x USA \ a very strange | ( OZ ) \___ ___ | country ! +- X_.---._/ presently in San Francisco \_/ \\ v To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message