Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 22:24:06 -0700 From: "Matthew Jacob" <lydianconcepts@gmail.com> To: "FreeBSD Current" <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Comments on the KSE option Message-ID: <7579f7fb0610282224q54743df1y5d6bc07832ba373f@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4544380E.4010604@samsco.org> References: <45425D92.8060205@elischer.org> <200610281132.21466.davidxu@freebsd.org> <20061028105454.S69980@fledge.watson.org> <20061028194125.GL30707@riyal.ugcs.caltech.edu> <20061028204357.A83519@fledge.watson.org> <200610290344.k9T3itAw054920@apollo.backplane.com> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0610290048530.15683@sea.ntplx.net> <4544380E.4010604@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/28/06, Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> wrote: > > > > All this debate about the merits of process scope threads and fair > scheduling is great. But tell me, who was working on making this stuff > work well quickly and reliably (i.e. work well)? No one! I don't care > what AIX or Solaris or what else may or may not have done, who was > making this work well for FreeBSD? Having a slow a thread subsystem is > a serious detriment, no matter how nice and flexible it looks on paper. This is the key point that needs to brought home over and over again. This is what (I believe) PHK indirectly also pointed out with his announcement of some problems a month or so back. In the timeline of where FreeBSD-current is with respect to gelling toward some plan of releasing it, it's "Show me the money" time.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7579f7fb0610282224q54743df1y5d6bc07832ba373f>