Date: Sat, 3 May 2003 08:55:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com> To: Scott Long <scott_long@btc.adaptec.com> Cc: Tom Samplonius <tom@sdf.com> Subject: Re: Java and native threads using libpthread Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10305030849530.5215-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <3EB368D0.7050208@btc.adaptec.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 3 May 2003, Scott Long wrote: > Tom Samplonius wrote: > > On Fri, 2 May 2003, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > > > > >>I know you guys have made a lot of progress with native threading > >>using libc_r, but I'd like to see you try out libpthread (libkse) > >>at some point. > > > > > > What kind of implmentation is libpthread? M:N or 1:1? freebsd-current > > has had several lengthy discussion about various competing available, > > proposed, or planned threading implemenations. I couldn't determine from > > the archives what the conclusion was. I hoping for a summary of what > > libpthread does now. > > > > ... > > > > libpthread was recently renamed back to libkse to avoid confusion until > it is ready for prime-time. It is M:N. libthr is 1:1. Both are not > ready for prime-time, especially with SMP, but it still might be > interesting to test them on UP systems. I tried jdk13 with libthr last > month and had mixed results. SwingSet2 ran pretty well, but the > mozilla plugin didn't. I haven't tried libkse yet since it deadlocks > quite quickly in rtld. I posted a patch to libpthread a couple of days ago that helps work around this problem; you might want to try that. I believe the Java implementation relies on libc_r internals, which aren't the same in libpthread (and perhaps libthr too). I wouldn't expect copying libthr or libpthread to libc_r to work for the JVM because of this. Perhaps this isn't true anymore, though... -- Dan Eischen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.10.10305030849530.5215-100000>