Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 13:36:23 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> Cc: threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Strawman proposal: making libthr default thread implementation? Message-ID: <20060703133454.L57091@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0607030744030.5823@sea.ntplx.net> References: <20060703101554.Q26325@fledge.watson.org> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0607030744030.5823@sea.ntplx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, Daniel Eischen wrote: >> - Are there technical features present in libpthread that aren't yet in >> libthr, and are required? In the past system/local thread support has >> been >> the complaint, but I believe that is now long fixed. This is useful >> regardless of a switch. > > Yes, you have to support PTHREAD_PRIO_PROTECT, PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT mutexes, > and SCHED_RR, SCHED_FIFO, and SCHED_SPORADIC scheduling (hopefully not under > the restriction that you are a privileged user). > > If you can those in libthr, I have no objection. However, these are not as > easy to do in 1:1. Thanks for leeting me know. Other than thee above missing scheduling functionality, are you aware of any other missing or substantially non-functional features in libthr that are important to this discussion? Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060703133454.L57091>