On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 7:11 AM, Philippe Anel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's almost what they do with KSE in FreeBSD (or Scheduler Activation > in NetBSD) right ? > > Phil; > KSEs were a way to make things that were not processes or threads in particular cooperatively scheduled with user-space callbacks. Basically the kernel signaled user-space to make a decision on what the next context would be. This is not the same a cooperatively scheduled coroutines where the re-scheduling happens as the result of making certain library calls to certain I/O routines (libtask does this, thanks again Russ!) KSEs were a mechanism to implement true-pre-emptive M:N threading for Posix threads... allowing M pthreads to be scheduled on N user processes. (I may have my M's and N's backwards). Usually what I've been seeing is the more popular thread implementations are 1:1, where each pthread is a user process as well. I'm not sure if KSE based threads or M:N in general, are a win in every situation people had hoped (or any for that matter). But then again I've not looked terribly deeply at this. 1:1 seems easier to reason about and keep track of :-) Dave > > > > > I've been writing a lot of Erlang code lately, and I keep thinking about, > but not having too much time to do much about, wanting to have a runtime for > the libthread "threads" that could auto-schedule them to libthread "procs", > in much the same way Haskell "sparks" may end up real threads, or Erlang > processes, might run in parallel. > > Dave > > >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "ron minnich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <[email protected]> >> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 4:23 AM >> Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan 9 on Blue Gene >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 6:48 PM, David Leimbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Does Plan 9 Port help? I mean, libthread on Plan 9 Port alone could be >>>> worth a ton to me in some situations. >>>> Concurrent programming for the win? >>>> >>> >>> probably not for this community. When we had plan9port in xcpu we got >>> nothing but complaints. This in spite of the fact that some things are >>> impossible to scale with 5000 posix threads, and easy to scale with >>> 5000 plan 9 style threads. >>> >>> ron >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
