Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 00:07:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com> To: Bill Huey <billh@gnuppy.monkey.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: New Linux threading model Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10209200002280.2162-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <20020920031423.GA3380@gnuppy.monkey.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Bill Huey wrote: > > Hello, > > I got this off of lkml: > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=103248252713576&w=2 > > paper: > http://people.redhat.com/drepper/nptl-design.pdf > > They basically went to (kept) a 1:1 threading model, but added a bunch of > things to the kernel so that stuff like signal handling, pid, thread suspension > via signal notification, etc... are all very conformant to Posix threading > now. > > In their paper, they talk briefly about how they came to the decision that > 1:1 is better than M:N and why they chose that against variants of M:N > including scheduler activations, a cross process fast-path synchronization > primitive called "futexes", etc... I read some of this and some of it is exactly opposite of why scheduler activations was made in the first place. They are pushing all scheduling decisions and locking in to the kernel. One of the points of scheduler activations is that the library can make all scheduling decisions without need for having the kernel involved. -- Dan Eischen To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.10.10209200002280.2162-100000>