Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 20:45:06 -0400 (EDT) From: "Geoffrey C. Speicher" <geoff@speicher.org> To: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Subject: Re: libkse -> libpthreads Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.10304212033090.60445-100000@speicher.org> In-Reply-To: <20030421190831.S76635-100000@mail.chesapeake.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003, Jeff Roberson wrote: > On Mon, 21 Apr 2003, Geoffrey C. Speicher wrote: > > > On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, Narvi wrote: > > > > > At least for the moment it is not clear that one of teh libraries is a > > > winner and will eliminate the other, so it would be evil to force people > > > > What's not clear about it? libkse is a superset of the functionality > > of libthr. Seems pretty straightforward to me that the long-term > > winner is libkse. > > Uh, no, it's not that clear. One is probably 30k lines of code smaller > which makes it less likely to have bugs. They also have different > performance characteristics. You could construct tests which demonstrated > better performance for different workloads on each. I will not deny that you are correct on all of the above, but bugs will be fixed, and inefficiencies will be corrected. Then we will have two very similar things in terms of stability and performance under 1:1 threading. One will also have support for 1:N and M:N, and the other will not. I do not mean to take anything away from your work, which is valuable for many reasons, but I really do think that the long-term goal should be more cooperation to make libkse perform as well as libthr in the 1:1 case once everything has shaken out rather than maintain them under separate tents. Geoff
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.10304212033090.60445-100000>