From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Dec 13 12:51:14 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F59937B401 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2002 12:51:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from hotmail.com (f154.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.9.154]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE4EE43EC5 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2002 12:51:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nathan_arun@hotmail.com) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 13 Dec 2002 12:51:12 -0800 Received: from 207.46.125.16 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 13 Dec 2002 20:51:12 GMT X-Originating-IP: [207.46.125.16] From: "Nathan Arun" To: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threads in FreeBSD Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 20:51:12 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Dec 2002 20:51:12.0768 (UTC) FILETIME=[5F2D5000:01C2A2E9] Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Thanks to everyone who replied. I'm not a kernel programmer and wouldn't know the relative merits of different threading architectures. Purely as an FYI, here is a white paper I came across on the internet. This is by a Redhat developer: http://people.redhat.com/drepper/nptl-design.pdf, who argues that 1-on-1 implementation is the best. And some benchmarks to prove it is here: http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2002/11/07/linux_threads.html?page=2 (though this is Linux) thanks again Nathan _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message