Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 19:18:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 19:18:26 -0400 Received: from sccrmhc01.attbi.com ([204.127.202.61]:55448 "EHLO sccrmhc01.attbi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 19:18:25 -0400 From: "Buddy Lumpkin" To: "'Bill Davidsen'" , "'Peter Waechtler'" Cc: "'Larry McVoy'" , , "'ingo Molnar'" Subject: RE: [ANNOUNCE] Native POSIX Thread Library 0.1 Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 16:26:24 -0700 Message-ID: <000001c2680f$a13af930$0472e50c@peecee> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2616 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2519 Lines: 76 Sun introduced a new thread library in Solaris 8 that is 1:1, but it did not replace the default N:M version, you have to link against /usr/lib/lwp. http://supportforum.sun.com/freesolaris/techfaqs.html?techfaqs_2957 http://www.itworld.com/AppDev/1170/swol-1218-insidesolaris/ I was at a USENIX BOF on threads in Boston year before last and Bill Lewis was ranting about how the N:M model sucks. Christopher Provenzano was right there and didn't seem to add any feelings one way or the other. Regards, --Buddy -----Original Message----- From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Bill Davidsen Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 12:15 PM To: Peter Waechtler Cc: Larry McVoy; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Native POSIX Thread Library 0.1 On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Peter Waechtler wrote: > Am Montag den, 23. September 2002, um 12:05, schrieb Bill Davidsen: > > > On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Larry McVoy wrote: > > > >> On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 08:55:39PM +0200, Peter Waechtler wrote: > >>> AIX and Irix deploy M:N - I guess for a good reason: it's more > >>> flexible and combine both approaches with easy runtime tuning if > >>> the app happens to run on SMP (the uncommon case). > >> > >> No, AIX and IRIX do it that way because their processes are so bloated > >> that it would be unthinkable to do a 1:1 model. > > > > And BSD? And Solaris? > > Don't know. I don't have access to all those Unices. I could try FreeBSD. At your convenience. > According to http://www.kegel.com/c10k.html Sun is moving to 1:1 > and FreeBSD still believes in M:N Sun is total news to me, "moving to" may be in Solaris 9, Sol8 seems to still be N:M. BSD is as I thought. > > MacOSX 10.1 does not support PROCESS_SHARED locks, tried that 5 minutes > ago. Thank you for the effort. Hum, that's a bit of a surprise, at least to me. -- bill davidsen CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/