Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 09:08:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org> Cc: threads@freebsd.org, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Strawman proposal: making libthr default thread implementation? Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0607040904310.11608@sea.ntplx.net> In-Reply-To: <200607040612.23493.davidxu@freebsd.org> References: <20060703101554.Q26325@fledge.watson.org> <200607032125.26156.davidxu@freebsd.org> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0607030942270.6373@sea.ntplx.net> <200607040612.23493.davidxu@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 4 Jul 2006, David Xu wrote: > On Monday 03 July 2006 21:44, Daniel Eischen wrote: >> On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, David Xu wrote: >>> On Monday 03 July 2006 20:40, Daniel Eischen wrote: >>>> No, I think those are what libthr lacks in supporting POSIX. >>>> I think the problem will be getting our 3 kernel schedulers to >>>> support them. >>> >>> it is mutex code and priority propagating which is already >>> supported by turnstile code, in theory, it is not depended >>> on scheduler. >> >> Sure it is. SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR are scheduling attributes. >> Mutex code and priority propagation have nothing to do with >> this. > > I have never said SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR is related to mutex, > in fact, I am confused that you always said them at same time. The question was what does libthr lack. The answer is priority inheritence & protect mutexes, and also SCHED_FIFO, SCHED_RR, and (in the future) SCHED_SPORADIC scheduling. That is what I stated earlier in this thread. -- DE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.64.0607040904310.11608>