From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Jan 20 11:17:19 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F0F416A41F;
	Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:17:16 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from davidxu@freebsd.org)
Message-ID: <43D0C6CC.7060005@freebsd.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 19:17:32 +0800
From: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US;
	rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20060117
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org>
References: <43D05151.5070409@elischer.org>	<20060120030105.GA5286@xor.obsecurity.org>	<43D0715A.7020302@elischer.org>	<20060120061955.GA8687@xor.obsecurity.org>	<20060120085226.GQ83922@FreeBSD.org>
	<43D0AB26.5070407@samsco.org>
In-Reply-To: <43D0AB26.5070407@samsco.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org>,
	current@freebsd.org, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
Subject: Re: kernel thread as real threads..
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
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: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:17:19 -0000

Scott Long wrote:

>
> For 1:1 threading is does make a little more sense.  We'd have to come 
> up with a way
> to accurately express whether the thread accounting stats are 
> meaningful or not depending
> on which library is in use.  Adding to the complexity would be that 
> KSE can create system
> and process scope threads, and that system scope threads behave mostly 
> like 1:1 threads.
> If someone wants to tackle all of this, that would be great, but my 
> only request would be
> that it can't sacrifice clarity in one library over another library.
>
> Scott
>
It has already  sacrificed 1:1 libthr,  I had set libthr default to be 
process scope thread,
so all kernels  in same ksegrp are trying to use kg_user_pri for its 
userland priority.
I saw very strange scheduler behavior, I may revert it to use system 
scope as default
scope.

David Xu