From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Apr  3 12:56:57 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC01C37B401
	for <freebsd-threads@freebsd.org>;
	Thu,  3 Apr 2003 12:56:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B97343F3F
	for <freebsd-threads@freebsd.org>;
	Thu,  3 Apr 2003 12:56:57 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com)
Received: from pcnet1.pcnet.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mail.pcnet.com (8.12.8/8.12.1) with ESMTP id h33KutBg010243;
	Thu, 3 Apr 2003 15:56:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (eischen@localhost)h33KutHG010240;
	Thu, 3 Apr 2003 15:56:55 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 15:56:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
To: "Geoffrey C. Speicher" <geoff@speicher.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.10304031503370.2892-100000@speicher.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10304031551410.9423-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: 1:N threading
X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD <freebsd-threads.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-threads>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-threads@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 20:56:58 -0000

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