Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:28:17 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com> To: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@tcoip.com.br> Cc: Scott Long <scott_long@btc.adaptec.com> Subject: Re: 1:1 threading. Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10303281352530.242-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <3E843009.2060104@tcoip.com.br>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: > David Xu wrote: > > > > do you think that a multithreaded process should use more CPU time then > > a single thread process, so threaded process should have higher priority > > and block other single thread processes out? AFAIK, threading is not > > designed for this, you may misunderstand what threading is designed for. > > Threading might not have been originally designed for this, but a lot of > people use it this way, a lot of people *want* it this way, and POSIX > specifically mandates that this way be available. It is available through pthread_attr_setscope(). There's some confusion over this and the way libthr is implemented. KSE's within the same KSE Group were not designed to give more CPU time than a normal unthreaded/single KSE'd process. Unless this has been changed in the kernel somehow, the use of multiple KSEs by libthr or libkse (in a single KSEG) will not get any more CPU time than a non-threaded program. There was some debate over this, but multiple KSEs within a KSEG were _not_ suppose to allow this. You are suppose to create a new KSEG in order to get this behavior. -- Dan Eischen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.10.10303281352530.242-100000>