From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Apr  3 13:14:30 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFD5437B401
	for <freebsd-threads@freebsd.org>;
	Thu,  3 Apr 2003 13:14:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from speicher.org (sirius.speicher.org [209.74.10.51])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A40FF43FAF
	for <freebsd-threads@freebsd.org>;
	Thu,  3 Apr 2003 13:14:29 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from geoff@speicher.org)
Received: from localhost (geoff@localhost)
	by speicher.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h33LQIS03067;
	Thu, 3 Apr 2003 16:26:18 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from geoff@speicher.org)
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 16:26:18 -0500 (EST)
From: "Geoffrey C. Speicher" <geoff@speicher.org>
To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10304031551410.9423-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.10304031620500.2892-100000@speicher.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: 1:N threading
X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
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: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 21:14:31 -0000

On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Daniel Eischen wrote:

> On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Geoffrey C. Speicher wrote:
> 
> > OK, so we've got 1:N threading (libc_r), 1:1 threading (thr), and M:N
> > threading (KSE).  Each model has its own merit depending on the
> > application.
> > 
> > However, it would still be nice if the 1:N model didn't block the whole
> > process when a thread blocks.  Is there any reason to hold onto a pure
>                               ^ in the kernel.
> 
> > userland implementation of 1:N?  Can libc_r be implemented in terms of
> > KSE?
> 
> Libc_r will go bye-bye.  The KSE library will give you 1:N
> as long as you don't use pthread_setconcurrency() and don't
> create any PTHREAD_SCOPE_PROCESS threads.

Doh.  I guess it would help if I reviewed the KSE project goals, hmm?  :/
I lost sight of that whole userland piece of the project somewhere during
last year...  too much drinking, I guess.

Thanks.

Geoff