sched_4BSD

[Kamal R. Prasad]

--- Steve Watt <steve at Watt.COM> 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 
kamalp at acm.org

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