Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 12:49:11 +0800 From: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org> To: kmacy@fsmware.com Cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org, Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Strawman proposal: making libthr default thread implementation? Message-ID: <44AB44C7.7040008@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <b1fa29170607042101q4a1204c7o942d83edcec71eb7@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060703101554.Q26325@fledge.watson.org> <200607042204.52572.davidxu@freebsd.org> <44AAC47F.2040508@elischer.org> <200607041819.05510.peter@wemm.org> <b1fa29170607042101q4a1204c7o942d83edcec71eb7@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kip Macy wrote: > > I believe that the views that Peter has expressed are held by quite a > few. I initially integrated bike_sched in my development branch for > the purpose of playing with different locking strategies. More > recently I've integrated it into my stable branch after discovering > that it greatly improved the stability of threaded applications. As a > consequence of it being in my stable branch it has been integrated > into a widely watched development project. I'll leave it to the > developer on that project to discuss it on -current. As someone who > has yet to make substantial contributions to FreeBSD it is not my > place to advocate for or against KSE. However, I will say, without > equivocation, that KSE needs a fair amount of TLC in the form of > re-factoring and bug fixes for it to have a place on future hardware. > > -Kip > By removing M:N code, the kernel code looks pretty clean. however, I will not agree Peter's hybrid M:N thread library idea, remember I wrote gdb support code for libpthread and libthr, writting debugger code for libpthread is a nightmare, the hybrid M:N will has this problem too. David Xu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44AB44C7.7040008>