[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: revivesa status 2008/07/09
In article <20080711232503.GA7461%hairylemon.org@localhost>,
Andrew Doran <andrew%hairylemon.org@localhost> wrote:
>On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 02:04:16PM +0100, David Brownlee wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Andrew Doran wrote:
>> >In its current form SA threading is a regressive proposition. Even if all
>> >the remaining issues are addressed, what benefits would it bring over and
>> >above 1:1 threading?
>> As I understand it there are two factors in favour of keeping SA:
>> - There was a report of a significant performance gain on single
>> core embedded arm32
>I have heard similar stories put about but I have not seen any test cases
>posted. Without evidence I find it difficult to classify them as anything
>other than myth based on myth.
>> - If we keep SA for 5.0 it allows people to run a 4.0 userland
>> on a 5.0 kernel while upgrading (and makes COMPAT_40 useful).
>That's not something that we support. Admittedly there is no public
>statement to that effect, as far as I am aware.
With the latest bind patch, I disabled pthreads. This was the only program
in base that used SA threads. So all programs in base should work without
SA pthread support on 5.0.
Main Index |
Thread Index |