Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 18 Dec 1999 00:58:21 -0500 (EST) | From | Stephen Frost <> | Subject | Re: RasterMan on linux and threads |
| |
On Fri, 17 Dec 1999, Brian Pomerantz wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 11:23:48PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > > > > hmm - when did that change ? i thought that was the case and was baked > > > up on hat asumtion by someone else a few weeks ago (primarily the > > > reason being to make sure the threads share caches for speed reasons > > > and to make sure cache concurrency issues are moe easiyl dealt with... > > > well thats what i unerstood... i may be wrong (2.2 or 2.3 may have > > > changed that) > > > > No, pthreads changed that, from my understanding. linuxthreads did > > it all in one thing w/o ever actually calling the kernel 'clone'. pthreads > > properly calles 'clone' and therefore each thread gets it's own PID and as > > such can be scheduled on any CPU. (Well, that's not the direct reason, but > > you know what I mean). > > Not quite. Linuxthreads has always used clone and is an attempt to > implement the POSIX threading spec. There has been a number of > pthread implementations over the years that were strictly user space. > I think there is a GNU threads or something like that which is still a > user-space pthread implementation.
Perhaps that's what I was thinking of. I just remember way back when during my first exposure to Linux the only thread library I had was one that did it all in user-space, and then I heard about glibc2 having threads that actually used kernel calls and would scale across processors...
Stephen
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |