From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 4 06:58:33 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-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 8490B16A4E1 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2006 06:58:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kip.macy@gmail.com) Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com (nz-out-0102.google.com [64.233.162.206]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CB6843D53 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2006 06:58:33 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kip.macy@gmail.com) Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id 34so601204nzf for ; Mon, 03 Jul 2006 23:58:32 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=ESD9SYVYZuude274C6aFyKi6XJMy8qPaB2fclTi0PmVwUmMz6ufFLcffJs1TY69X6RzIqf5gkVsEsW0GpxwWoEpkLshQLD7BpziQcsrWkQXvWP6uU/ahIWCjCh++VNnclE/bQXrwVQeeWnxy2RYuI4cB5cGTLzDq+8k5baQoB2Y= Received: by 10.65.210.4 with SMTP id m4mr3874565qbq; Mon, 03 Jul 2006 23:58:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.65.225.9 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Jul 2006 23:58:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 23:58:32 -0700 From: "Kip Macy" To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Subject: Re: Strawman proposal: making libthr default thread implementation? X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: kmacy@fsmware.com List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 06:58:33 -0000 Hi, as some of you may know, I've been working on a port to the sun4v. This has motivated me to take a closer look at some of our locking. One glaring item is the existence of sched_lock that serializes context switches and thread state changes across all 32 logical cpus. I'm interested in adding somewhat finer-grained locking, but this is made more complicated by the kernel-side implementation of KSE. I find it worthy of note, that Sun dropped support for scheduler activations in Solaris because their engineers recognized that most significant applications are written with the assumption of linux-style system scope threads. Can someone please point me at real-world applications that are used to compare FreeBSD and Linux that rely on PROCESS_SCOPE and or general scheduler activation semantics? -Kip