From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 3 12:35:57 2003 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 98A9037B405 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 12:35:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from speicher.org (sirius.speicher.org [209.74.10.51]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFF8A43F93 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 12:35:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from geoff@speicher.org) Received: from localhost (geoff@localhost) by speicher.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h33Klkq02986 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 15:47:46 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from geoff@speicher.org) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 15:47:46 -0500 (EST) From: "Geoffrey C. Speicher" To: freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: 1:N threading 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: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 20:35:57 -0000 OK, so we've got 1:N threading (libc_r), 1:1 threading (thr), and M:N threading (KSE). Each model has its own merit depending on the application. However, it would still be nice if the 1:N model didn't block the whole process when a thread blocks. Is there any reason to hold onto a pure userland implementation of 1:N? Can libc_r be implemented in terms of KSE? Geoff