--- Steve Watt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > > No, POSIX 1003.1 is the standard, the thread portion > was known for > some time as 1003.1c, but was combined in with the > base. > Ok -I meant the POSIX std when I answered Julian.
> NPTL is a particular (less brain damaged than > LinuxThreads) > implementation of the POSIX thread standard. > > Likewise, scheduler activations are a decent > implementation of doesn't that have a problem with M:N performance (M |= N)? > threads. I'll refrain from commenting further about > libc_r. > > Julian> so how does that differ from what we have > ... a > Julian> native pthreads library? > > Kamal>I just said if it was conformant with NPTL, > thread and > Kamal>process scheduling would co-exist. > > Uh, as far as I understand, in NPTL, each thread > gets a scheduler > slot, and it is my understanding that there is > nothing to protect > against the issue that Julian is asking about (1000 > threads of a > single process *do* get 1000 times the time slices). > (AFAIK) Referring to the POSIX std (and not NPTL) -if threads were defined within process scope and not system scope -the scheduling attributes of the process will apply. regards -kamal ------------------------------------------------------------ Kamal R. Prasad UNIX systems consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is:-). ------------------------------------------------------------ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
