Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 01:28:28 -0700 From: Bill Huey (Hui) <billh@gnuppy.monkey.org> To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG, "Bill Huey (Hui)" <billh@gnuppy.monkey.org> Subject: Re: New Linux threading model Message-ID: <20020920082828.GA4207@gnuppy.monkey.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10209200002280.2162-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> References: <20020920031423.GA3380@gnuppy.monkey.org> <Pine.GSO.4.10.10209200002280.2162-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 12:07:15AM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote: > 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. I wasn't quite sure how to break this to them without being completely impolite. They did some measurements, but I'm curious how something like thread performance (context switching, blocking) in libc_r measures against their 1:1 model. It should be simple to write a test program to check it out and see what kind of result they get. bill 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?20020920082828.GA4207>