Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 06:12:23 +0800 From: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org> To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> Cc: threads@freebsd.org, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Strawman proposal: making libthr default thread implementation? Message-ID: <200607040612.23493.davidxu@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0607030942270.6373@sea.ntplx.net> References: <20060703101554.Q26325@fledge.watson.org> <200607032125.26156.davidxu@freebsd.org> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0607030942270.6373@sea.ntplx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 03 July 2006 21:44, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, David Xu wrote: > > On Monday 03 July 2006 20:40, Daniel Eischen wrote: > >> 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. > > > > it is mutex code and priority propagating which is already > > supported by turnstile code, in theory, it is not depended > > on scheduler. > > Sure it is. SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR are scheduling attributes. > Mutex code and priority propagation have nothing to do with > this. I have never said SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR is related to mutex, in fact, I am confused that you always said them at same time.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200607040612.23493.davidxu>