Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 22:04:52 +0800 From: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org, Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> Cc: threads@freebsd.org, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Strawman proposal: making libthr default thread implementation? Message-ID: <200607042204.52572.davidxu@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0607040904310.11608@sea.ntplx.net> References: <20060703101554.Q26325@fledge.watson.org> <200607040612.23493.davidxu@freebsd.org> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0607040904310.11608@sea.ntplx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 04 July 2006 21:08, Daniel Eischen wrote: > 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. As other people said, we need performance, these features, as you said, in the future, but I don't think it is more important than performance problem. you have to answer people what they should do when they bought two cpus but works like they only have one, as the major author of libpthread, in the past, you decided to keep silent, ignoring such requirement. also, the signal queue may not work reliably with libpthread, this nightmare appears again.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200607042204.52572.davidxu>