From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Mar  6 10:14:24 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 976C616A4CE
	for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Sun,  6 Mar 2005 10:14:24 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from web52702.mail.yahoo.com (web52702.mail.yahoo.com
	[206.190.39.153])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 263C443D48
	for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Sun,  6 Mar 2005 10:14:24 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from kamalpr@yahoo.com)
Received: (qmail 44747 invoked by uid 60001); 6 Mar 2005 10:14:23 -0000
Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
	s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
	b=r5Qq3/doae9T8gL7cE/mND3GgXUFx3bMZppmaiAcGtndSF4ivwNqGmcpBPjr2J0zUAOoQnXWTvARq5CSO6GY3hBQ8x9Td+Qeddz1pJWUAqA6G13Wrp4rk7nPDHgvzVQdUwuVh7pEwjloc8WPjkv6R5q4BePCzyG4J/CVJFf9w8o=
	;
Message-ID: <20050306101423.44745.qmail@web52702.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [202.91.78.244] by web52702.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP;
	Sun, 06 Mar 2005 02:14:23 PST
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 02:14:23 -0800 (PST)
From: "Kamal R. Prasad" <kamalpr@yahoo.com>
To: Steve Watt <steve@Watt.COM>
In-Reply-To: 6667
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
cc: hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: sched_4BSD
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: kamalp@acm.org
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 10:14:24 -0000


--- Steve Watt <steve@Watt.COM> wrote:
[snip]
> 
> No, POSIX 1003.1 is the standard, the thread portion
> was known for
> some time as 1003.1c, but was combined in with the
> base.
> 
Ok -I meant the POSIX std when I answered Julian. 

> NPTL is a particular (less brain damaged than
> LinuxThreads)
> implementation of the POSIX thread standard.
> 
> Likewise, scheduler activations are a decent
> implementation of

doesn't that have a problem with M:N performance (M |=
N)?

> threads.  I'll refrain from commenting further about
> libc_r.
> 
> Julian> so how does that differ from what we have
> ... a
> Julian> native pthreads library?
> 
> Kamal>I just said if it was conformant with NPTL,
> thread and
> Kamal>process scheduling would co-exist.
> 
> Uh, as far as I understand, in NPTL, each thread
> gets a scheduler
> slot, and it is my understanding that there is
> nothing to protect
> against the issue that Julian is asking about (1000
> threads of a
> single process *do* get 1000 times the time slices).
> 

(AFAIK) Referring to the POSIX std (and not NPTL) -if
threads were defined within process scope and not
system scope -the scheduling attributes of the process
will apply.

regards
-kamal


------------------------------------------------------------
Kamal R. Prasad
UNIX systems consultant 
kamalp@acm.org

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is:-).
------------------------------------------------------------

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com