From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 28 12:34:49 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CED4837B404 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:34:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A81B43FCB for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:34:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com) Received: from pcnet1.pcnet.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.pcnet.com (8.12.8/8.12.1) with ESMTP id h2SKYiBg018345; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:34:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (eischen@localhost)h2SKYiKC018341; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:34:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:34:44 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen To: Jeff Roberson In-Reply-To: <20030328151526.S64602-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-25.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_PINE autolearn=ham version=2.50 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp) cc: arch@freebsd.org cc: Scott Long Subject: Re: 1:1 threading. X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:34:51 -0000 On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Jeff Roberson wrote: > On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > > 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. > > > > This is not how it is implemented in either scheduler that we currently > have. I'm not saying which way is more or less correct because I think > you could argue either way. We can not entirely correctly implement > SCOPE_PROCESSES threads right now anyway. Well, since we have KSEGs, I'd argue that this is a bug. Perhaps it was too difficult to do this and no-one thought you'd ever allow more KSEs in a KSEG than you have CPUs, so that became the limiting factor. > This being said.. It is a property of the thr system calls and not > libthr. I have a flags field in thr_create() that could be used to > indicate which scope the thread should contend in. BTW, I'm not arguing about libthr implementation here. I'm just stating what a KSE is (was) suppose to be (which implicitly describes libthr and libkse behavior). -- Dan Eischen