Date: Sat, 21 Oct 1995 08:44:09 +1000 (EST) From: John Birrell <cimaxp1!jb@werple.net.au> To: leisner@sdsp.mc.xerox.com (Marty Leisner) Cc: hackers@freebsd.org, jb@cimlogic.com.au Subject: Re: NetBSD/FreeBSD (pthreads) Message-ID: <199510202241.IAA26825@werple.net.au> In-Reply-To: <9510201855.AA17636@gnu.mc.xerox.com> from "Marty Leisner" at Oct 20, 95 11:55:04 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Marty, > > > Why would I want kernel level threads? We try to make do with what's available. I _need_ threads for some applications. I _wanted_ kernel level threads (and I probably still do), but we can be successful with user-space threads. And that's what matters to me. I'm not sure if you want answers to these... > > 1) does a debugger understand userlevel threads? Not to the extent that you can debug individual threads without seeing the other threads. But the debugger is still useful (and not completely useless!). > 2) if I run a threaded application under strace, with kernel > levels threads is may make some sense...with user level threads > there's all this junk in the way... True. It would be nice not to see the 'junk'. > 3) Anyone have good hard numbers about the differences between user/kernel > level threads on performance? No. We don't have a user-space implementation that works on a system with kernel threads. We would have just used the kernel threads (like we do under OSF/1^H^H^H^HDigital UNIX). 8-). > > Like I said, the mit package is awfully clever... > > > > -- > marty > leisner@sdsp.mc.xerox.com > Member of the League for Programming Freedom > > > -- John Birrell CIMlogic Pty Ltd jb@cimlogic.com.au 119 Cecil Street Ph +61 3 9690 9600 South Melbourne Vic 3205 Fax +61 3 9690 6650 Australia Mob +61 18 353 137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199510202241.IAA26825>