Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:32:48 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: David Xu <davidxu@t2t2.com> Cc: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: libpthread vs libthread, simply mysql benchmark (fwd) Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1050221103026.30083A-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <42199148.8040104@t2t2.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, David Xu wrote: > There are lots of differences, I don't think they are the same thing. > Although it was derived from libpthread, now it is a new library, I > rewrote most part of code. I'm thinking he best place to import it is as a replacement for libthr, since that's the closest architecturally (libthr was also 1:1, synchronization based on umtx, etc). However, we should ping jeff and mtm to make sure they don't object. Another reason not to drop it over libpthread is that it keeps libpthread around for direct comparison (performance, etc), and also means that the production thread library from 5.x is still in 6.x, so gives a better path for testing and merging of fixes. Robert N M Watson > > Daniel Eischen wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, David Xu wrote: > > > > > >>May I import the library into tree ? I remembered that someone said if > >>it is not > >>in cvs tree, few of people will try it. if people tried it, and find it > >>is not valuable, > >>I can remove it from tree. > > > > > > I would rather have you incorporate it into libpthread if you can > > add the SCHED_* and priority mutex support. > > > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1050221103026.30083A-100000>