Re: Glibc-based Debian GNU/KNetBSD
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 01:56:04PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
> Robert Millan <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 07:31:09PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
> >> Although it is still not as stable as we'd like, the benchmarks of the
> >> native threads on NetBSD are pretty damn impressive. I'd say that not
> >> using the native threads would be a tremendous waste...
> > When NPTL is ported,
> I assume you mean the Netscape stuff? It is running on top of our
> libc's pthreads right now in NetBSD. The problem is you don't HAVE our
> pthreads if you go to glibc.
No, he's talking about the new threads library on Linux 2.6. There's a
design overview here: http://people.redhat.com/drepper/nptl-design.pdf
> > it'll be no difference. The "native" word is meaningless here.
That last sentence doesn't make sense, Robert. If you do get NPTL
running on NetBSD, you'll have to use the same NetBSD kernel interfaces
as the native libc does.
> I see you haven't studied the scheduler activations framework.
I think he's ignorant of the scale of the problem, yes.
> The scheduler activations infrastructure is VERY complicated. It took
> a couple of years to write and has taken us nearly a year to get the
> bugs shaken out of it, using all native tools.
> You would be much better off just specifying what was missing from the
> native libc so that it could be added -- that, at least, is a
> tractable problem.
I think in some viewpoints (certainly not mine), the problem may be that
it's not glibc. But that's just my impression.
In any case, it's obviously far saner to try to port libpthreads from
the NetBSD libc to glibc than to port NPTL from Linux.