Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 02:14:23 -0800 (PST) From: "Kamal R. Prasad" <kamalpr@yahoo.com> To: Steve Watt <steve@Watt.COM> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sched_4BSD Message-ID: <20050306101423.44745.qmail@web52702.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: 6667
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--- 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050306101423.44745.qmail>