Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:03:14 +0600 From: Max Khon <fjoe@iclub.nsu.ru> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 1:1 threading. Message-ID: <20030327150313.A8897@iclub.nsu.ru> In-Reply-To: <3E82B795.DDB0C6A4@mindspring.com>; from tlambert2@mindspring.com on Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 12:34:29AM -0800 References: <20030327020402.T64602-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> <3E82B795.DDB0C6A4@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
hi, there! On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 12:34:29AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > After reading your 1:1 threading code, I think you needn't > > > hack current KSE code to build your own 1:1 threading code. > > > Our code allow you to do this, actully, it's my earlier > > > idea to let 1:1 be implemented in our M:N code base, but never > > > had told this to julian or others. > > > > It was actually done outside of KSE on purpose. It keeps the API simpler > > and cleaner. It keeps the implementation cleaner. It keeps it out of the > > majority of the KSE code paths aside from thread_suspend and related > > code. > > > > I wanted something small and stable that built on top of KSE provided > > primitives but did not actually use the KSE apis. This makes it easier > > for KSE to continue growing and changing while the 1:1 code remains > > simple. It also removes some of the cost associated with doing KSE. > > This isn't really a legitimate argument. Seconded. do you have numbers that clearly show that using Julian's approach leads to serious performance penalty? Using KSE APIs is not that difficult as far as I understand, so why we need to introduce more hacks? /fjoe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030327150313.A8897>