From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 4 21:57:55 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2E7016AA06 for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 21:57:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from outQ.internet-mail-service.net (outQ.internet-mail-service.net [216.240.47.240]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B42143CD6 for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 21:56:57 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from shell.idiom.com (HELO idiom.com) (216.240.47.20) by out.internet-mail-service.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with ESMTP; Mon, 04 Dec 2006 13:43:37 -0800 Received: from [10.251.18.229] (nat.ironport.com [63.251.108.100]) by idiom.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id kB4LvOhD007266; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 13:57:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Message-ID: <457499BD.9080000@elischer.org> Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 13:57:17 -0800 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Macintosh/20061025) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joshua M References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threading arch quetions X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 21:57:56 -0000 Joshua M wrote: > Hello, > > Sorry for disturbing but i have some questions concerning threaded arch > in FreeBSD. > Sorry for possible repeating also. > > 1. What was primary concern when adopting KSE based threading model ? We adopted a scheme which would allow us to implement both M:N threads and 1:1 threads with compatible libraries that do it each way. The hope was that this would allow people to experiment with these. and for us to be able to select the best approach. After a couple of years, the general consensus is that M:N threads has added complexity that keeps it from reaching it's theoretical potential. There are examples where M:N outperforms 1:1 but they are the minority, so we will be switching the default library to 1:1 threads and making the M:N library available to those applications for which it makes more sense. We will continue to keep M:N threading available where it is currently supported, but there are a lot of complexities that make things like correct statistics (per thread) and debugging, to be more difficult in M:N threading. Note that the kernel support for threads is the same for both models, where processes have sub-entities (kernel schedulable entities) called threads, as opposed to in Linux where each thread is a separate process. > 2. Is there benchmarks comparing Linux's NPTL and KSE based pthreads in > FreeBSD ? Not generally..there are some that show performance problems with the FreeBSD threads and there is an ongoing project to improve the situation. > > Thank you. > > _________________________________________________________________ > Windows Live Messenger sur i-mode™ : dialoguez avec vos amis depuis > votre mobile comme sur PC ! http://mobile.live.fr/messenger/bouygues/ > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-threads@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-threads-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"