From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Feb 10 17:30:20 2004
Return-Path: <owner-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 EB8F516A4CE
	for <freebsd-threads@freebsd.org>;
	Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:30:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bento.FreeBSD.org (bento.freebsd.org [216.136.204.23])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id E636243D31; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:30:20 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from davidxu@freebsd.org)
Received: from freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by bento.FreeBSD.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i1B1UIQt013558;
	Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:30:19 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from davidxu@freebsd.org)
Message-ID: <402985B5.8080703@freebsd.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:30:29 +0800
From: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
	rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030723 Thunderbird/0.1
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0402101716170.82714-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0402101716170.82714-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Question about threads [beaver challenge]
X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD <freebsd-threads.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-threads>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-threads@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:30:21 -0000

Julian Elischer wrote:

>>>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
>>>successfully for a time when they all (by some fluke) all decide to
>>>enter the kernel at the same time.
>>>      
>>>
>>Well, since the kernel limit for scope system threads is much smaller
>>than that for "threads blocked in kernel", you'd hit the limit much
>>sooner if the port/application used scope system threads instead
>>of scope process threads.
>>    
>>
>
>but at least it wouldn't be a surprise :-)
>

You can print a warning message like LDT allocating code.

David Xu