Re: Comments on the KSE option

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006, Paul Allen wrote:

> From Daniel Eischen <deischen_at_freebsd.org>, Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 04:41:16PM -0400:
>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006, Paul Allen wrote:
>>
>>>> From Julian Elischer <julian_at_elischer.org>, Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at
>>>> 12:27:14PM -0700:
>>>> The aim of the fair scheduling code is to ensure that if you, as a user,
>>>> make a process that starts 1000 threads, and I as a user, make an
>>>> unthreaded process, then I can still get to the CPU at somewhat similar
>>>> rates to you.  A naive scheduler would give you 1000 cpu slots and me 1.
>>>
>>> Ah.  Let me be one of the first to take a crack at attacking this idea as
>>> a mistake.
>>
>> No, it is POSIX.  You, the application, can write a program with
>> system scope or process scope threads and get whatever you behavior
>> you want, within rlimits of course.
> So your argument is: "if I can find a spec that does it, its right"
> Sorry but if you participated in more spec writing--I do, in the IEEE--
> you'd realize that was not a good position from which to argue.  Plenty
> of mistakes are made in specs.

If you want to argue about it, go argue in the POSIX working
group, not here.  We have what we have, and it IS something
that is important to allow.

Nothing about what you said previously is prevented by allowing
both system and process scope threading.

There are those that really want POSIX threading semantics,
so please don't tell me that I can't have them.  I certainly
am not going to argue for removing system scope threading
(which according to Julian is what libthr defaults to).

-- 
DE