Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>