From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 30 23:27:41 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8420B37B401 for ; Fri, 30 May 2003 23:27:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from silver.he.iki.fi (silver.he.iki.fi [193.64.42.241]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F6CE43FAF for ; Fri, 30 May 2003 23:27:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pete@he.iki.fi) Received: from PETEX31 (h81.vuokselantie10.fi [193.64.42.129]) by silver.he.iki.fi (8.12.9/8.11.4) with SMTP id h4V6Rbk8016817; Sat, 31 May 2003 09:27:37 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from pete@he.iki.fi) Message-ID: <00c401c3273d$b59a9140$812a40c1@PETEX31> From: "Petri Helenius" To: "Matthew D. Fuller" , "Daniel Eischen" References: <20030531024932.GP61246@over-yonder.net> Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 09:27:28 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 cc: threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Transition plans: libkse->libpthread X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 06:27:41 -0000 > >From my comfortable position here in the peanut gallery, I've been > thinking about this. Now that we have libthr around (presumably for a > long time), mightn't it be a good idea to keep libkse and libkse, libthr > and libthr, and maybe even libc_r as libc_r, and have libpthread be a > {sym,hard}link to one of the above? Since we're ending up with multiple > libraries implementing the pthreads API, with the presumption that > they're at least nominally interchangeable, might we not want to make > that switchability explicit? > >From where Iīm looking at this (pthreads user) I donīt see value retaining libc_r longer than neccessary for backwards compability. FreeBSD would benefit greatly having the "default" threads implementation to be well performing and using all available CPU on a machine. What are the observed benefits on running a threaded application with 1:1 threads instead of the M:N libkse model? And if you need more scheduled entities, wouldnīt you just crank up the concurrency parameter? Pete