Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 09:44:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org> Cc: threads@freebsd.org, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Strawman proposal: making libthr default thread implementation? Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0607030942270.6373@sea.ntplx.net> In-Reply-To: <200607032125.26156.davidxu@freebsd.org> References: <20060703101554.Q26325@fledge.watson.org> <20060703133454.L57091@fledge.watson.org> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0607030838190.6102@sea.ntplx.net> <200607032125.26156.davidxu@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, David Xu wrote: > On Monday 03 July 2006 20:40, Daniel Eischen wrote: > >> No, I think those are what libthr lacks in supporting POSIX. >> I think the problem will be getting our 3 kernel schedulers to >> support them. > > it is mutex code and priority propagating which is already > supported by turnstile code, in theory, it is not depended > on scheduler. Sure it is. SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR are scheduling attributes. Mutex code and priority propagation have nothing to do with this. -- DE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.64.0607030942270.6373>