Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:08:10 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc@crodrigues.org> Cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Question about threads [beaver challenge] Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0402101705210.82714-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <20040211005752.GA90415@crodrigues.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Craig Rodrigues wrote: > On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 06:22:28PM -0500, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > That's why I wanted to know what top -H showed. We saw the > > same problem with python -- it was using system scope threads > > by default. The port has since been changed to use process > > scope threads. > > Is this a Linux-ism that we will need to be aware of > for other ports that use pthreads? process scope threads a re perfectly reasonable.. they however use more resources and are more heavily limitted. On the other hand process scope threads can lead to nasty surprises with the limits as they can "suddenly" hit th ekernel limit after running usccessfully for a time when they all (by some fluke) all decide to enter the kernel at the same time. We probably should increase the limits from 150 and 50 to 600 and 300 or something. > > -- > Craig Rodrigues > http://crodrigues.org > rodrigc@crodrigues.org > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-threads@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-threads-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0402101705210.82714-100000>