Re: libthr and 1:1 threading.

Jun Su wrote:
> 
[ ... 1:1 kernel threads implementation ... ]
> 
> A benchmark would be interested.

This request doesn't make sense.

The primary performance reasoning behind a 1:1 kernel threading
implementation, relative to the user space single kernel entry
scheduler in the libc_r implementation is SMP scalability for
threaded applications.

Basically, the only reasonable benchmark, given this, for a
comparison of the two would be a threaded CPU-bound program
on a *non-SMP* system.  That really makes no sense, because
that wasn't the use case for the design goal of SMP scalability;
it doesn't really matter *what* the relative performance is on
UP systems, relative to the libc_r library, so long as it adds
SMP scalability.  Which it does.

It's apples and oranges; there's really no reasonable way to
compare the two implementations, since they solve different
problem sets.

Could you maybe ask a different question?

-- Terry