Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 08:51:43 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> Cc: Paul Allen <nospam@ugcs.caltech.edu>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org>, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Subject: Re: Comments on the KSE option Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0610290845150.17696@sea.ntplx.net> In-Reply-To: <4544380E.4010604@samsco.org> References: <45425D92.8060205@elischer.org> <200610281132.21466.davidxu@freebsd.org> <20061028105454.S69980@fledge.watson.org> <20061028194125.GL30707@riyal.ugcs.caltech.edu> <20061028204357.A83519@fledge.watson.org> <200610290344.k9T3itAw054920@apollo.backplane.com> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0610290048530.15683@sea.ntplx.net> <4544380E.4010604@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006, Scott Long wrote: > Daniel Eischen wrote: >> Actually, that's not quite true. I assume you know the thing you >> left out: system scope threads compete against all the other >> system scope threads in the system (from all applications, not >> just within one application). >> > > All this debate about the merits of process scope threads and fair > scheduling is great. But tell me, who was working on making this stuff > work well quickly and reliably (i.e. work well)? No one! I don't care > what AIX or Solaris or what else may or may not have done, who was making > this work well for FreeBSD? Having a slow a thread subsystem is > a serious detriment, no matter how nice and flexible it looks on paper. Process scope threads work well in libpthread. System scope threads work well and fast in libthr. I think most people's concept of "fast" as applied to process scope threads doesn't quite mesh well with the fact that process scheduling is fair. -- DE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.64.0610290845150.17696>