From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 27 20:50:34 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78ED516A417; Fri, 27 Oct 2006 20:50:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [216.240.41.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C25B843D70; Fri, 27 Oct 2006 20:50:33 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: from apollo.backplane.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by apollo.backplane.com (8.13.7/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k9RKoX4U045281; Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:50:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.13.7/8.13.4/Submit) id k9RKoXo3045280; Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:50:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:50:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <200610272050.k9RKoXo3045280@apollo.backplane.com> To: Daniel Eischen References: <45425D92.8060205@elischer.org> <20061027201838.GH30707@riyal.ugcs.caltech.edu> Cc: Paul Allen , Julian Elischer , current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Comments on the KSE option X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 20:50:34 -0000 :No, it is POSIX. You, the application, can write a program with :system scope or process scope threads and get whatever you behavior :you want, within rlimits of course. : :If you want unfair scheduling, then create your threads with :system scope contention, otherwise use process scope. The :kernel should be designed to allow both, and have adjustable :limits in place for (at least) system scope threads. : :Noone is saying that you can't have as many system scope threads :as you want (and as allowed by limits), just that you must also :be able to have process scope threads (with probably higher limits :or possibly no limits). : :-- :DE This is a nice concept, but totally unrealistic in actual operation because you generally have no control over how the application programmer designed his application. It is the user running the application who needs to be able to control how the thread scope effects the overall system, not the application designer. The argument here is not how a program runs alone on a system, but how it effects the performance of other programs running on the system. Unless you are advocating that the system administrator or user perform surgery on every single application in the system (KDE, Firefox, and on down the line), the problem cannot be solved by depending on programmers to do the right thing vis-a-vie the POSIX standard. -Matt