Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 15:56:55 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com> To: "Geoffrey C. Speicher" <geoff@speicher.org> Cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 1:N threading Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10304031551410.9423-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.10304031503370.2892-100000@speicher.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Geoffrey C. Speicher wrote:
> OK, so we've got 1:N threading (libc_r), 1:1 threading (thr), and M:N
> threading (KSE). Each model has its own merit depending on the
> application.
>
> However, it would still be nice if the 1:N model didn't block the whole
> process when a thread blocks. Is there any reason to hold onto a pure
^ in the kernel.
> userland implementation of 1:N? Can libc_r be implemented in terms of
> KSE?
Libc_r will go bye-bye. The KSE library will give you 1:N
as long as you don't use pthread_setconcurrency() and don't
create any PTHREAD_SCOPE_PROCESS threads.
--
Dan Eischen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.10.10304031551410.9423-100000>