From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Nov 23 22:48:49 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B34CB14EC5 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 22:48:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA25609 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 07:48:33 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id HAA32215 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 07:48:33 +0100 (MET) Received: from alpo.whistle.com (alpo.whistle.com [207.76.204.38]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A540215162; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 22:48:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from julian@whistle.com) Received: from home.elischer.org (home.elischer.org [207.76.204.203]) by alpo.whistle.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA55165; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 22:47:55 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 22:47:53 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer X-Sender: julian@home.elischer.org To: Daniel Eischen Cc: Chuck Robey , Nate Williams , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, jasone@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threads In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Sorry to have been silent for few days on the topic.. I've been following but not had the time to respond. On Wed, 24 Nov 1999, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Wed, 24 Nov 1999, Chuck Robey wrote: > > > OK, then let me ask another question: are we at all concerned about maybe > > following an already established thread API, or are we going to create our > > own? Things like user threads probably could work as then are now (albeit > > perhaps with only minor changes in performance) and stuff with runtimes > > like Java wouldn't care, but big programs like XFree86 and Netscape, and > > specially made daemons trying to do things like mass factoring, > > that are going to really want to manipulate real concurrency levels, > > they're going to have to be aware of our real underlying API, so making a > > unique one will complicate a lot of lives. > > IMHO, we should stick to the POSIX and perhaps SSv2 standards. We > shouldn't be rolling our own non-standard interfaces unless there's > a very good reason to. One of the 'goals' we discussed was th ability to implement standards Ithink that the exposed inteface will be a library. The kernel interface is something we will have towork out on our own. though some parts of it will necessarily be visible to teh outside (e.g. through ps) > > POSIX provides a way to set concurrency levels (pthread_setconcurrency) > as well as creating PTHREAD_SCOPE_SYSTEM threads which should compete > for processor time with all the other scope system threads in the system. > It might be good to see what Java and other systems need from a > threads library. Is a fully compliant POSIX threading environment > enough? I would imagine it should be enough. > > Dan Eischen > eischen@vigrid.com > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message > Julian To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message