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 One is out of date and encrusted with unfixed bugs, one uses "pure" kernel-supported threads, and another is user-level.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