Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 10:56:21AM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote: >> Lev Serebryakov wrote: >>> Hello , >>> >>> I've was sure, that both libpthread and libthr use KSE to make >>> multithreading. They use KSE in different ways: libpthread uses N:M >>> model and libthr uses 1:1 model, but bot use KSE to work. >>> How will be possible to use these libraries (read: multithreaded >>> programs) when KSE will be optional, on kernel without KSE?! >> Yes, isn't KSE by definition "that thing that is scheduled in the kernel"? >> > KSE == N:M threading > > A 1:1 threading (libthr) is much simpler than N:M threading (libpthread), > and thus doesn't require KSE support in the kernel; see kse(2) manpage > for details. Without the KSE option in the kernel, all kse(2) syscalls > will return EOPNOTSUPP, and a lot of code becomes redundant. KSE is a misnomer that I abandoned long ago.. mostly it is the thread fairness code that is independent of what threading library is running (see the other email I just sent) (or should be) > > : /* > : * Initialize global thread allocation resources. > : */ > : void > : threadinit(void) > : { > : > : mtx_init(&tid_lock, "TID lock", NULL, MTX_DEF); > : tid_unrhdr = new_unrhdr(PID_MAX + 1, INT_MAX, &tid_lock); > : > : thread_zone = uma_zcreate("THREAD", sched_sizeof_thread(), > : thread_ctor, thread_dtor, thread_init, thread_fini, > : UMA_ALIGN_CACHE, 0); > : #ifdef KSE > : ksegrp_zone = uma_zcreate("KSEGRP", sched_sizeof_ksegrp(), > : ksegrp_ctor, NULL, NULL, NULL, > : UMA_ALIGN_CACHE, 0); > : kseinit(); /* set up kse specific stuff e.g. upcall zone*/ > : #endif The KSEGRP is a part of the fairness code in general and independent of M:N and 1:1 > : } > > > Cheers,Received on Fri Oct 27 2006 - 17:34:27 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:01 UTC