Re: Comments on the KSE option

Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006, Scott Long wrote:
> 
>> Daniel Eischen wrote:
>>> Actually, that's not quite true.  I assume you know the thing you
>>> left out:  system scope threads compete against all the other
>>> system scope threads in the system (from all applications, not
>>> just within one application).
>>>
>>
>> All this debate about the merits of process scope threads and fair
>> scheduling is great.  But tell me, who was working on making this stuff
>> work well quickly and reliably (i.e. work well)?  No one!  I don't care
>> what AIX or Solaris or what else may or may not have done, who was 
>> making this work well for FreeBSD?  Having a slow a thread subsystem is
>> a serious detriment, no matter how nice and flexible it looks on paper.
> 
> Process scope threads work well in libpthread.  System scope
> threads work well and fast in libthr.  I think most people's
> concept of "fast" as applied to process scope threads doesn't
> quite mesh well with the fact that process scheduling is fair.
> 

Btw, why is PTHREADS_INVARIANTS still enabled on -STABLE branches?  We
don't have kernel INVARIANTS enabled there, so I don't understand why
libpthread needs to be different.

Scott