*BSD News Article 90054


Return to BSD News archive

Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!uunet!in3.uu.net!204.253.4.5!news.bridge.net!news.this.com!news1.best.com!nntp1.ba.best.com!usenet
From: Bryan O'Sullivan <bos@serpentine.com>
Newsgroups: comp.programming.threads,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: [??] pure kernel vs. dual concurrency implementations
Date: 24 Feb 1997 15:19:24 -0800
Organization: Polymorphous Thaumaturgy
Lines: 17
Sender: bos@organon
Message-ID: <87d8tpx05f.fsf@serpentine.com>
References: <330CE6A4.63B0@cet.co.jp> <874tf7lbxc.fsf@serpentine.com>
	<Pine.BSF.3.95.970221180902.15657A-100000@hydra.parkplace.ne.jp>
	<87d8ttinp6.fsf@serpentine.com> <330FDA3C.6753@cet.co.jp>
NNTP-Posting-Host: organon.serpentine.com
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.programming.threads:3295 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:36053

m> People have implemented both two-level and pure userlevel on the
m> same platform though.  I guess there were done independently to
m> address a deficiency of the other model.

I doubt it.  There are, for example, three "kind of" POSIX threads
libraries available for Linux.  One is out of date and encrusted with
unfixed bugs, one uses "pure" kernel-supported threads, and another is
user-level.  Each was developed independently of the others, but the
motivations behind the different implementations are pretty diverse.

	<b

-- 
Let us pray:
What a Great System.                   bos@eng.sun.com
Please Do Not Crash.                bos@serpentine.com
^G^IP@P6                http://www.serpentine.com/~bos