Comments on the KSE option

[Daniel Eischen]

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006, Lucas James wrote:

> On Sunday 29 October 2006 12:08, Daniel Eischen wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006, Paul Allen wrote:
>>> Anyways it remains dubious in my mind that the kernel should allow
>>> a user to create many processes but penalize creating threads.
>>
>> Are you even _reading_ what people are saying?  No one has
>> said that you can't have system scope threads.  Stop with
>> the FUD.  The question we seem to be arguing about is whether
>> to also allow (and perhaps make default) process scope threads
>> (these are fair threads).
>
> I read what Paul said was that system scope threads have a
> different "fairness" than processes. ie:

I don't think that is the case.  I believe threads created with
their own ksegrp (system scope) have the same priority and quantum
as a process.

The only comment was that we lost the ability to have process
scope (fair scheduling) threads under libthr.

-- 
DE