From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Oct 29 04:45:18 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EB1816A415 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 2006 04:45:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org) Received: from mail.ntplx.net (mail.ntplx.net [204.213.176.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5F7743D46 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 2006 04:45:17 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org) Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11]) by mail.ntplx.net (8.13.7/8.13.7/NETPLEX) with ESMTP id k9T4jGws024936; Sun, 29 Oct 2006 00:45:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 00:45:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net To: Lucas James In-Reply-To: <200610291257.11744.Lucas.James@ldjcs.com.au> Message-ID: References: <45425D92.8060205@elischer.org> <20061028194125.GL30707@riyal.ugcs.caltech.edu> <200610291257.11744.Lucas.James@ldjcs.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Message whitelisted by DRAC access database, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0.2 (mail.ntplx.net [204.213.176.10]); Sun, 29 Oct 2006 00:45:16 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.ntplx.net) Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Comments on the KSE option X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Daniel Eischen List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 04:45:18 -0000 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