Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 19:03:25 -0500 (EST) From: "Geoffrey C. Speicher" <geoff@speicher.org> To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com> Cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 1:N threading Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.10304031856550.3285-100000@speicher.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10304031551410.9423-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Geoffrey C. Speicher wrote:
>
> > OK, so we've got 1:N threading (libc_r), 1:1 threading (thr), and M:N
> > threading (KSE). Each model has its own merit depending on the
> > application.
> >
> > However, it would still be nice if the 1:N model didn't block the whole
> > process when a thread blocks. Is there any reason to hold onto a pure
> ^ in the kernel.
>
> > userland implementation of 1:N? Can libc_r be implemented in terms of
> > KSE?
>
> Libc_r will go bye-bye. The KSE library will give you 1:N
> as long as you don't use pthread_setconcurrency() and don't
> create any PTHREAD_SCOPE_PROCESS threads.
Two questions:
1. You meant PTHREAD_SCOPE_SYSTEM, right?
2. Does always using PTHREAD_SCOPE_PROCESS give 1:1 threading
that would also replace libthr?
Geoff
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.10304031856550.3285-100000>