From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 28 14:12:21 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 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 11D0816A403; Sat, 28 Oct 2006 14:12:21 +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 8DBF743D55; Sat, 28 Oct 2006 14:12:20 +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 k9SECFWt022493; Sat, 28 Oct 2006 10:12:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 10:12:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net To: David Xu In-Reply-To: <200610281255.57135.davidxu@freebsd.org> Message-ID: References: <45425D92.8060205@elischer.org> <200610281206.13588.davidxu@freebsd.org> <4542DE59.5010500@elischer.org> <200610281255.57135.davidxu@freebsd.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]); Sat, 28 Oct 2006 10:12:15 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.ntplx.net) Cc: Paul Allen , freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Julian Elischer , "Alexandre \\Sunny\\ Kovalenko" , current@freebsd.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 List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 14:12:21 -0000 On Sat, 28 Oct 2006, David Xu wrote: > On Saturday 28 October 2006 12:36, Julian Elischer wrote: >>>> Julian >>> >>> As you are emphasizing fairness, I must say I don't believe fairness in >>> libpthread either, >> >> you mean you don't think it is a good idea or that you don't think it >> works? (sorry, I know that your english is way better than my >> chinese ;-) >> > I meant I don't think libpthread's userland scheduler + ksegrp in kernel > has implemented fairness between threads correctly. I think it has, at least WRT POSIX RR and FIFO scheduling. If there are more than one ksegrps, then it depends. POSIX says that scheduling with multiple scheduling allocation domains (I think that is the wording) is implementation defined. But one of the things I want to do is to keep threads scheduled on the same kse/ksegrp, so there would be one run queue for each (libpthread's version of a) kse, and threads would stay on the same kse. -- DE