Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 08:40:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Cc: threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Strawman proposal: making libthr default thread implementation? Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0607030838190.6102@sea.ntplx.net> In-Reply-To: <20060703133454.L57091@fledge.watson.org> References: <20060703101554.Q26325@fledge.watson.org> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0607030744030.5823@sea.ntplx.net> <20060703133454.L57091@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, Robert Watson wrote: > > On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, Daniel Eischen wrote: > >>> - Are there technical features present in libpthread that aren't yet in >>> libthr, and are required? In the past system/local thread support has >>> been >>> the complaint, but I believe that is now long fixed. This is useful >>> regardless of a switch. >> >> Yes, you have to support PTHREAD_PRIO_PROTECT, PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT >> mutexes, and SCHED_RR, SCHED_FIFO, and SCHED_SPORADIC scheduling (hopefully >> not under the restriction that you are a privileged user). >> >> If you can those in libthr, I have no objection. However, these are not as >> easy to do in 1:1. > > Thanks for leeting me know. Other than thee above missing scheduling > functionality, are you aware of any other missing or substantially > non-functional features in libthr that are important to this discussion? No, I think those are what libthr lacks in supporting POSIX. I think the problem will be getting our 3 kernel schedulers to support them. -- DE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.64.0607030838190.6102>