From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Jul 2 07:05:12 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA26246 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 07:05:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from indigo.ie (root@ts01-55.waterford.indigo.ie [194.125.139.118]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA26222 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 07:05:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rotel@indigo.ie) Received: (from nsmart@localhost) by indigo.ie (8.8.8/8.8.7) id OAA00589; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 14:21:54 +0100 (IST) (envelope-from rotel@ginseng.indigo.ie) From: Niall Smart Message-Id: <199807021321.OAA00589@indigo.ie> Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 14:21:53 +0000 In-Reply-To: Terry Lambert "Re: pthreads" (Jul 2, 12:44am) Reply-To: rotel@indigo.ie X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.6 beta(3) 11/17/96) To: Terry Lambert , jabley@clear.co.nz (Joe Abley) Subject: Re: pthreads Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Jul 2, 12:44am, Terry Lambert wrote: } Subject: Re: pthreads > > Does anybody know the background of posix thread support in FreeBSD? I > > can't seem to find any docs on the background anywhere... [snip] > John Birrell rewrote lots of it in -current, with an eye toward > bringing the code up to the Draft 10 standard (the ratified standard), > and he and John Dyson did a lot of work to support a kernel > implementation, also in -current, using rfork() and some rather > complicated stack management. This is basically sharing a number of kernel processes among a set of threads, right? Do you know if any progress was made towards a LWP scheme? If John Dyson's async I/O code is in place that would help a lot on that area I think. > John Dyson did a number of patches for CPU affinity CPU affinity? You mean the threading library can pass scheduling hints to the kernel for a set of processes? Was this threading model an interim measure until someone wrote one based on LWP or intended to be the way that it would always be done? There are a number of problems with this approach (outlined in a paper called "Scheduler Activations: Effective Kernel Support for the User Level Management of Parallelism", ask me for a copy if you want one) althought it is much easier to implement than a LWP based model. Niall -- Niall Smart. PGP: finger njs3@motmot.doc.ic.ac.uk FreeBSD: Turning PC's into Workstations: www.freebsd.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message