From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jul  5 04:49:12 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EB7C16A4DE;
	Wed,  5 Jul 2006 04:49:08 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from davidxu@freebsd.org)
Message-ID: <44AB44C7.7040008@freebsd.org>
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 12:49:11 +0800
From: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20060519
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: kmacy@fsmware.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>
In-Reply-To: <b1fa29170607042101q4a1204c7o942d83edcec71eb7@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
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: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 04:49:12 -0000

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