Strawman proposal: making libthr default thread implementation?

Daniel Eischen deischen at
Mon Jul 3 12:41:12 UTC 2006

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, Robert Watson wrote:

> On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, Daniel Eischen wrote:
>>> - Are there technical features present in libpthread that aren't yet in
>>>  libthr, and are required?  In the past system/local thread support has 
>>> been
>>>  the complaint, but I believe that is now long fixed.  This is useful
>>>  regardless of a switch.
>> mutexes, and SCHED_RR, SCHED_FIFO, and SCHED_SPORADIC scheduling (hopefully 
>> not under the restriction that you are a privileged user).
>> If you can those in libthr, I have no objection.  However, these are not as 
>> easy to do in 1:1.
> Thanks for leeting me know.  Other than thee above missing scheduling 
> functionality, are you aware of any other missing or substantially 
> non-functional features in libthr that are important to this discussion?

No, I think those are what libthr lacks in supporting POSIX.
I think the problem will be getting our 3 kernel schedulers to
support them.


More information about the freebsd-threads mailing list