Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 19:17:32 +0800 From: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org> To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org>, current@freebsd.org, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Subject: Re: kernel thread as real threads.. Message-ID: <43D0C6CC.7060005@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <43D0AB26.5070407@samsco.org> References: <43D05151.5070409@elischer.org> <20060120030105.GA5286@xor.obsecurity.org> <43D0715A.7020302@elischer.org> <20060120061955.GA8687@xor.obsecurity.org> <20060120085226.GQ83922@FreeBSD.org> <43D0AB26.5070407@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Scott Long wrote: > > For 1:1 threading is does make a little more sense. We'd have to come > up with a way > to accurately express whether the thread accounting stats are > meaningful or not depending > on which library is in use. Adding to the complexity would be that > KSE can create system > and process scope threads, and that system scope threads behave mostly > like 1:1 threads. > If someone wants to tackle all of this, that would be great, but my > only request would be > that it can't sacrifice clarity in one library over another library. > > Scott > It has already sacrificed 1:1 libthr, I had set libthr default to be process scope thread, so all kernels in same ksegrp are trying to use kg_user_pri for its userland priority. I saw very strange scheduler behavior, I may revert it to use system scope as default scope. David Xu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43D0C6CC.7060005>