From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 10 17:16:54 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F9AC16A4CE for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:16:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net (rwcrmhc11.comcast.net [204.127.198.35]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 497E043D2F for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:16:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from interjet.elischer.org ([24.7.73.28]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc11) with ESMTP id <2004021101165301300fk80ve>; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:16:53 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1]) by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA87062; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:16:52 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:16:50 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer To: Daniel Eischen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Question about threads [beaver challenge] X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:16:54 -0000 On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Craig Rodrigues wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 06:22:28PM -0500, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > > > That's why I wanted to know what top -H showed. We saw the > > > > same problem with python -- it was using system scope threads > > > > by default. The port has since been changed to use process > > > > scope threads. > > > > > > Is this a Linux-ism that we will need to be aware of > > > for other ports that use pthreads? > > Probably, yes. > > > > > process scope threads a re perfectly reasonable.. they however > > use more resources and are more heavily limitted. > > > > > > On the other hand process scope threads can lead to nasty surprises with > > the limits as they can "suddenly" hit th ekernel limit after running > > successfully for a time when they all (by some fluke) all decide to > > enter the kernel at the same time. > > Well, since the kernel limit for scope system threads is much smaller > than that for "threads blocked in kernel", you'd hit the limit much > sooner if the port/application used scope system threads instead > of scope process threads. but at least it wouldn't be a surprise :-) > > > We probably should increase the limits from 150 and 50 to > > 600 and 300 or something. > > That's fine by me. It's all a guessing game for me 'cause I > don't really know what you'd expect to see with some of these > applications. > > -- > Dan Eischen > >