Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 00:45:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: Lucas James <Lucas.James@ldjcs.com.au> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Comments on the KSE option Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0610290041270.15683@sea.ntplx.net> In-Reply-To: <200610291257.11744.Lucas.James@ldjcs.com.au> References: <45425D92.8060205@elischer.org> <20061028194125.GL30707@riyal.ugcs.caltech.edu> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0610282106500.14917@sea.ntplx.net> <200610291257.11744.Lucas.James@ldjcs.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006, Lucas James wrote: > On Sunday 29 October 2006 12:08, Daniel Eischen wrote: >> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006, Paul Allen wrote: >>> Anyways it remains dubious in my mind that the kernel should allow >>> a user to create many processes but penalize creating threads. >> >> Are you even _reading_ what people are saying? No one has >> said that you can't have system scope threads. Stop with >> the FUD. The question we seem to be arguing about is whether >> to also allow (and perhaps make default) process scope threads >> (these are fair threads). > > I read what Paul said was that system scope threads have a > different "fairness" than processes. ie: I don't think that is the case. I believe threads created with their own ksegrp (system scope) have the same priority and quantum as a process. The only comment was that we lost the ability to have process scope (fair scheduling) threads under libthr. -- DE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.64.0610290041270.15683>