From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jul  3 22:12:46 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: threads@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG
Received: from localhost.my.domain (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFE7E16A403;
	Mon,  3 Jul 2006 22:12:45 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from davidxu@freebsd.org)
From: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org>
To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 06:12:23 +0800
User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2
References: <20060703101554.Q26325@fledge.watson.org>
	<200607032125.26156.davidxu@freebsd.org>
	<Pine.GSO.4.64.0607030942270.6373@sea.ntplx.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0607030942270.6373@sea.ntplx.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200607040612.23493.davidxu@freebsd.org>
Cc: threads@freebsd.org, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>,
	freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Strawman proposal: making libthr default thread implementation?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
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: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 22:12:46 -0000

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.