From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 7 09:05:39 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC15F16A4CE for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 09:05:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32FE443D55 for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 09:05:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fledge.watson.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i07H3xUd007771; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 12:03:59 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Received: from localhost (robert@localhost)i07H3xE5007768; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 12:03:59 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 12:03:59 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Watson X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Craig Rodrigues In-Reply-To: <20040107070442.GB34511@crodrigues.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Release criteria for libkse -> libpthread switch? X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 17:05:39 -0000 On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Craig Rodrigues wrote: > I asked this question to re@, but didn't get a clear answer. > > What is are the release criteria for switching libkse to libpthread? I > assume that this is going to be targeted for 5.3, and not 5.2. > > Dan Eischen has been periodically testing with ACE, which works quite > well with libkse. Are there other representative multithreaded > applications which need to be tested? If so, which ones? > > re@ has mentioned that there are problems with ports and PTHREAD_CFLAGS > and PTHREAD_LIBS which currently prevent switching libkse to libpthread. > How many ports need to be fixed? Does every single port need to be > fixed before the switch is made? If not, how many ports can be fixed to > have an acceptable state of affairs for the switch? > > I am very eager to have a more robust pthreads implementation for > FreeBSD, so that I can use FreeBSD as a drop-in replacement for Linux > for several projects that I work on. > > I think we are pretty close... I'm not sure there's a specific documented set of criteria at this point, other than that the issue probably got addressed too late in the 5.2 release process. There are a number of running concerns, including: (1) Avoid building a binary library name dependency into all the pre-built packages we distribute. Also, resolve any lasting concerns about how build processes should say "And I want threads, dammit". (2) Have services like process debugging, profiling available and known fully functional (or close). I agree that we're very close. I was under the vague impression that we planned to throw the switch once 5.2 was officially out the door. Many of us are running KSE as our libc_r via libmap.conf on all our machines, and have been for many months, and it appears to hold up quite well :-). Resolving how best to declare threading support in binaries will also facilitate shipping the JDK linked against KSE. Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects robert@fledge.watson.org Senior Research Scientist, McAfee Research