From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 4 05:53:37 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: threads@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D005416A4DA; Tue, 4 Jul 2006 05:53:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from canning.wemm.org (canning.wemm.org [192.203.228.65]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60DFB43D46; Tue, 4 Jul 2006 05:53:37 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from fw.wemm.org (canning.wemm.org [192.203.228.65]) by canning.wemm.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D8D52A8DF; Mon, 3 Jul 2006 22:53:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from overcee.wemm.org (overcee.wemm.org [10.0.0.3]) by fw.wemm.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3B78E2B3; Mon, 3 Jul 2006 22:53:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from overcee.wemm.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by overcee.wemm.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k645raih070401; Mon, 3 Jul 2006 22:53:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by overcee.wemm.org (8.13.4/8.13.1/Submit) id k645ra39070400; Mon, 3 Jul 2006 22:53:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) X-Authentication-Warning: overcee.wemm.org: peter set sender to peter@wemm.org using -f From: Peter Wemm To: Daniel Eischen Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 22:53:35 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200607032253.35982.peter@wemm.org> Cc: threads@freebsd.org, Robert Watson , davidxu@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Strawman proposal: making libthr default thread implementation? X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 05:53:37 -0000 On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, David Xu wrote: > >> On Monday 03 July 2006 19:48, Daniel Eischen wrote: >> >>> Yes, you have to support PTHREAD_PRIO_PROTECT, PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT >>> mutexes, and SCHED_RR, SCHED_FIFO, and SCHED_SPORADIC scheduling >>> (hopefully not under the restriction that you are a privileged >>> user). >>> >> >> I would tell you don't implement system scope thread in libpthread, >> because system scope thread does not work in the way you said here, >> it seems you are telling user that the libpthread is fully working in >> the way, but the reality is not, without a correct kernel support, >> I don't think you should introduce system scope thread into >> libpthread, please remove this feautre if you think libpthread should >> work in the way. > > I don't believe that system scope threads have to abide > by SCHED_RR, SCHED_FIFO, and SCHED_SPORADIC scheduling > since their contention scope is different. It sounds like (by your definition) that switching to a libthr that only has system scope threads means we don't have to implement those modes, right? My interest is reducing the performance cost with critical applications that are optimized for the assumption of a linux-like system-scope-only threading model. -- Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5