From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Oct 29 13:52:30 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B47DA16A40F;
	Sun, 29 Oct 2006 13:52:30 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org)
Received: from mail.ntplx.net (mail.ntplx.net [204.213.176.10])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55C8443D49;
	Sun, 29 Oct 2006 13:52:29 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org)
Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11])
	by mail.ntplx.net (8.13.7/8.13.7/NETPLEX) with ESMTP id k9TDphtR028072; 
	Sun, 29 Oct 2006 08:51:45 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 08:51:43 -0500 (EST)
From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net
To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org>
In-Reply-To: <4544380E.4010604@samsco.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0610290845150.17696@sea.ntplx.net>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Greylist: Message whitelisted by DRAC access database, not delayed by
	milter-greylist-2.0.2 (mail.ntplx.net [204.213.176.10]);
	Sun, 29 Oct 2006 08:51:46 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.ntplx.net)
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
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 13:52:30 -0000

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