Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 22:53:35 -0700 From: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> Cc: threads@freebsd.org, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, davidxu@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Strawman proposal: making libthr default thread implementation? Message-ID: <200607032253.35982.peter@wemm.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, David Xu wrote: > >> On Monday 03 July 2006 19:48, Daniel Eischen wrote: >> >>> 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). >>> >> >> I would tell you don't implement system scope thread in libpthread, >> because system scope thread does not work in the way you said here, >> it seems you are telling user that the libpthread is fully working in >> the way, but the reality is not, without a correct kernel support, >> I don't think you should introduce system scope thread into >> libpthread, please remove this feautre if you think libpthread should >> work in the way. > > I don't believe that system scope threads have to abide > by SCHED_RR, SCHED_FIFO, and SCHED_SPORADIC scheduling > since their contention scope is different. It sounds like (by your definition) that switching to a libthr that only has system scope threads means we don't have to implement those modes, right? My interest is reducing the performance cost with critical applications that are optimized for the assumption of a linux-like system-scope-only threading model. -- Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200607032253.35982.peter>