pthread_mutex_timedlock on sparc64

[Miles Nordin]

>>>>> "kk" == Kris Kennaway <kris at obsecurity.org> writes:

    kk> In practise libthr is the fastest thread package, although
    kk> there must still be some reason we don't make it the default.

thanks for the answers.  makes sense, I think I've finally got it.

For those forced to read all my noise today that haven't already heard
this 1:1 vs MxN thing debated to death, this is the last thing I read
about it:

 http://www.sun.com/software/whitepapers/solaris9/multithread.pdf

 ``This is not to say that a good implementation of MxN model is
   impossible, but simply that a good 1:1 implementation is probably
   sufficient.  This paper does not attempt a discussion of the
   relative merits of the MxN and 1:1 threading models.  The basic
   thesis is that the quality of an implementation is often more
   important.''

The context is, a bunch of papers were published since 1993 showing
that MxN threads were the most performant, and FreeBSD kse, Solaris
threads between 2.6 and 2.8, threads in OSF/1 (I think the kse guys
cited some Digital paper?), and NetBSD Scheduler Activations are all
based on the design in the original paper cited at the end of kse(2).

Sun scrapped scheduler activations in Solaris 2.9.  They had to write
the above advertisement PDF to convince people who'd read all that
research since '93 that the 1:1 threads really were performant, and
that they didn't just wuss out after too many bugs and revert to a
slow, obvious EnTee/Linux style thread subsystem.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 304 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-sparc64/attachments/20060420/0ee2b1e3/attachment.pgp