Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 11:37:39 -0700 (MST) From: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com>, java@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Java and libc/libpthread Message-ID: <15013.11891.57267.160163@nomad.yogotech.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010306131003.21096A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> References: <15013.10075.22410.630598@nomad.yogotech.com> <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010306131003.21096A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > I'm currently working on an NxN libpthread implementation as
> > > an interim solution until we get KSEs. The goal is to get
> > > this done before 5.0.
> >
> > How is this different from the current implementation?
>
> File descriptors will not be made non-blocking like they are
> currently in libc_r. When a thread blocks on I/O, it _really_
> blocks -- no other threads will be scheduled within that
> [rfork_thread'd/cloned] process.
So, reversing the logic ('not be made non-blocking'), file descriptors
will be made blocking? This doesn't seem like progress, but I may not
understand the implications.
> Other PTHREAD_SCOPE_SYSTEM
> [rfork_thread] threads will continue to run.
So, you're going to create a system similar to Linux-threads, but with a
more BSD-like license?
Nate
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-java" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15013.11891.57267.160163>