From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Apr 25 14:51:55 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA23217 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 14:51:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from mozart.canonware.com (canonware.com [206.184.206.112]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA23205 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 14:51:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jasone@canonware.com) Received: from localhost (jasone@localhost) by mozart.canonware.com (8.8.8/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA27929; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 14:49:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jasone@canonware.com) X-Authentication-Warning: mozart.canonware.com: jasone owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 14:48:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Jason Evans To: "John S. Dyson" cc: Christoph Toshok , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: threads performance In-Reply-To: <199804251754.MAA11694@dyson.iquest.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sat, 25 Apr 1998, John S. Dyson wrote: > The issue of kernel threads is on my plate, I have been *ordered* > > (not in a demanding fashion, but they are my reason for existance > at work for awhile. We will also be porting the essence of the > work to NetBSD -- NetBSD can take 'em or leave 'em if they want, > but we are adding the code to our private NetBSD tree at work.) > > to do them this week for work (got sick again, so thought I would flamewar > instead, since my higher order functions were totally gone :-)). Will the work you (John) are planning on doing in the near term include the pthreads wrapper library, or will you just be making clone() work? Threads performance is also very important to SQRL (the Hungry DBMS), so I'm very interested in how the pthreads library that uses clone() will be architected. Specifically, will we be doing the same as LinuxThreads does, with a 1:1 mapping of threads to kernel "processes"? I tend to think that a multi-level threading scheme, such as what Solaris uses, has the potential for better scalable performance. It's also a good bit harder to write such a library. =( We'd also need to understand the performance problems with our current user-land threads library to make multi-level threads work well. Jason Jason Evans Email: [jasone@canonware.com] Web: [http://www.canonware.com/~jasone] Home phone: [(650) 856-8204] Work phone: [(408) 774-8007] Quote: ["Invention is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration" - Thomas Edison] To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message