Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 06:35:34 +0100 From: "Niall Douglas" <s_sourceforge@nedprod.com> To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GDB 6.0 and FreeBSD threads Message-ID: <40691536.2959.6A4C95E@localhost> In-Reply-To: <4068F9D6.3070704@elischer.org> References: <4068DA49.24401.5BE9BE4@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 29 Mar 2004 at 20:38, Julian Elischer wrote: > Ah but Linux and Solaris have gone the other way.. > They have abandonned M:N in favour of N:N with kernel based thread > suspension. I haven't implemented a thread scheduler in some years, but I am more familiar with what's required than many who state an opinion on M:N vs. 1:1. My instinct says that M:N is the superior solution - I don't have anything to prove this and certainly it'll be tricky, but generally anything which increases parallelisability will increase scalability. I had been watching your work from afar just out of interest in how you do with a real M:N implementation. Someone asked for my library to work on FreeBSD, so now I'm actually part of the process. I look forward to it. Cheers, Niall -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: idw's PGP-Frontend 4.9.6.1 / 9-2003 + PGP 8.0.2 iQA/AwUBQGkHJsEcvDLFGKbPEQK2dQCePDAlbbO0nW1izrS38nByHSqxZX8An1uz fdEpkLzqfDuPzS2eMu01vw10 =aVNt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?40691536.2959.6A4C95E>