Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:54:46 -0700
From:      Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org>
To:        Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
Cc:        Paul Allen <nospam@ugcs.caltech.edu>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org>, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
Subject:   Re: Comments on the  KSE option
Message-ID:  <4544EAE6.2030406@samsco.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0610290845150.17696@sea.ntplx.net>
References:  <45425D92.8060205@elischer.org> <200610281132.21466.davidxu@freebsd.org> <20061028105454.S69980@fledge.watson.org> <20061028194125.GL30707@riyal.ugcs.caltech.edu> <20061028204357.A83519@fledge.watson.org> <200610290344.k9T3itAw054920@apollo.backplane.com> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0610290048530.15683@sea.ntplx.net> <4544380E.4010604@samsco.org> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0610290845150.17696@sea.ntplx.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006, Scott Long wrote:
> 
>> Daniel Eischen wrote:
>>> Actually, that's not quite true.  I assume you know the thing you
>>> left out:  system scope threads compete against all the other
>>> system scope threads in the system (from all applications, not
>>> just within one application).
>>>
>>
>> All this debate about the merits of process scope threads and fair
>> scheduling is great.  But tell me, who was working on making this stuff
>> work well quickly and reliably (i.e. work well)?  No one!  I don't care
>> what AIX or Solaris or what else may or may not have done, who was 
>> making this work well for FreeBSD?  Having a slow a thread subsystem is
>> a serious detriment, no matter how nice and flexible it looks on paper.
> 
> Process scope threads work well in libpthread.  System scope
> threads work well and fast in libthr.  I think most people's
> concept of "fast" as applied to process scope threads doesn't
> quite mesh well with the fact that process scheduling is fair.
> 

Btw, why is PTHREADS_INVARIANTS still enabled on -STABLE branches?  We
don't have kernel INVARIANTS enabled there, so I don't understand why
libpthread needs to be different.

Scott




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4544EAE6.2030406>