From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Nov 1 4:48: 5 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 BECB2150A8 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 04:48:01 -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 NAA12819 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 13:47:56 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id NAA72428 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 13:47:53 +0100 (MET) Received: from pcnet1.pcnet.com (pcnet1.pcnet.com [204.213.232.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21A3A150A8 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 04:47:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com) Received: (from eischen@localhost) by pcnet1.pcnet.com (8.8.7/PCNet) id HAA13624; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 07:46:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 07:46:22 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen Message-Id: <199911011246.HAA13624@pcnet1.pcnet.com> To: dcs@newsguy.com, eischen@vigrid.com Subject: Re: Threads goals version II Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > Some people (most people on the FreeBSD campus who have been > involved with threads, it would seem) think that having more threads > for the purpose of increasing your time slice is bad behavior, to > say the least. Unix have a mechanism to adjust the relative priority > between processes, which is called priority. If a process is > supposed to eat more cpu time than others, it is given a lower > priority than the others. An application can fork just as well as create threads. You're not stopping anything here. > Having a programmer get around the admin mechanism to adjust process > priority through use of threads might led to a situation where > competing users end up bogging down the whole system while fighting > for cpu time. Again, what's the difference between fork and creating a thread with a new LWP? Count LWPs along with processes and keep it within the limits of maxproc. > Anyway, this is the "contention" point that has been mentioned. Many > people here _want_ all processes to be equal, no matter how many > threads they run. Instead of trying to convince people to see the > light, just ask that your dissent be noted, or that both > capabilities be present. Consider this notification. Dan Eischen eischen@vigrid.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message