summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/service_solahart_jakarta_selatan__082122541663/nptl.mdwn
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'service_solahart_jakarta_selatan__082122541663/nptl.mdwn')
-rw-r--r--service_solahart_jakarta_selatan__082122541663/nptl.mdwn116
1 files changed, 116 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/service_solahart_jakarta_selatan__082122541663/nptl.mdwn b/service_solahart_jakarta_selatan__082122541663/nptl.mdwn
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..be0270df
--- /dev/null
+++ b/service_solahart_jakarta_selatan__082122541663/nptl.mdwn
@@ -0,0 +1,116 @@
+[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2010, 2013, 2014 Free Software Foundation,
+Inc."]]
+
+[[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable
+id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
+document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
+any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant
+Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license
+is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation
+License|/fdl]]."]]"""]]
+
+[[!tag open_issue_libpthread open_issue_glibc]]
+
+[[!toc]]
+
+
+# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2010-07-31
+
+ <tschwinge> Other question: how difficult is a NPTL port? Futexes and some
+ kernel interfaces for scheduling stuff etc. -- what else?
+ <youpi> actually NPTL doesn't _require_ futexes
+ <youpi> it just requires low-level locks
+ <youpi> Mmm, it seems to be so only in principle
+ <youpi> I can see futex names here and there in the generic code
+ <youpi> looks like Drepper isn't disciplined enough in that area either
+ <tschwinge> (well, why would he...)
+ <youpi> I'm not sure we really want to port NPTL
+ <tschwinge> OK.
+ <youpi> Drepper will keep finding things to add
+ <youpi> while the interface between glibc and libpthread isn't increasing
+ _so_ much
+ <tschwinge> ... and even less so the interfavce that actual applications
+ are using.
+ <tschwinge> We'd need to evaluate which benefits NPTL would bring.
+
+
+# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-08-05
+
+ <gnu_srs> Hi, looks like kfreebsd are now using an NPTL-based pthread
+ library: FBTL, http://lists.debian.org/debian-bsd/2013/07/msg00060.html
+ <gnu_srs> Anything of interest for porting to Hurd? See also
+ http://lists.debian.org/debian-hurd/2013/08/msg00000.html
+ <azeem> Petr could've been more verbose in his announcements
+ <pinotree> and there's
+ http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/open_issues/nptl.html in our wiki
+ <azeem> well, it seems to work fine for kFreeBSD:
+ http://lists.debian.org/debian-bsd/2013/07/msg00134.html
+ <azeem> and http://lists.debian.org/debian-bsd/2013/07/msg00138.html
+
+
+# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-12-26
+
+ <nalaginrut> hm? has NPTL already supported for Hurd?
+ <braunr> probably won't ever be
+ <nalaginrut> so no plan for it?
+ <braunr> what for ?
+ <nalaginrut> no one interested in it, or no necessary adding it?
+ <braunr> why would you want nptl ?
+ <braunr> ntpl was created to overcome the defficiencies of linuxthreads
+ <braunr> we have our own libpthread
+ <braunr> (with its own defficiencies)
+ <braunr> supporting nptl would probably force us to implement something a
+ la clone
+ <nalaginrut> well, just inertia, now that Linux/kFreebsd has it
+ <braunr> are you sure kfreebsd has it ?
+ * teythoon thought we have clone
+ <nalaginrut> http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/open_issues/nptl.html
+ <nalaginrut> seems someone mentioned it
+ <braunr> it's a "nptl-like implementation"
+ <nalaginrut> yes, I don't think it should be the same with Linux one, but
+ something like it
+ <braunr> but what for ?
+ <braunr> as mentioned in the link you just gave, "<tschwinge> We'd need to
+ evaluate which benefits NPTL would bring."
+ <nalaginrut> well, it's the note of 2010, I don't know if it's relative now
+ <braunr> relevant*
+ <nalaginrut> ah thanks
+ <braunr> but that still doesn't answer anything
+ <braunr> why are *you* talking about nptl ?
+ <nalaginrut> just saw pthread, then recall nptl, dunno
+ <nalaginrut> just asking
+ <braunr> :)
+ <nalaginrut> but you mentioned that Hurd has its own thread implementation,
+ is it similar or better than Linux NPTL?
+ <nalaginrut> or there's no benchmark yet?
+ <braunr> it's inferior in performance
+ <braunr> almost everything in the hurd is inferior performance-wise because
+ of the lack of optimizations
+ <braunr> currently we care more about correctness
+ <nalaginrut> speak the NPTL, I ever argued with a friend since I saw
+ drepper mentioned NPTL should be m:n, then I thought it is...But finally
+ I was failed, he didn't implement it yet...
+ <braunr> what ?
+ <braunr> nptl was always 1:1
+ <nalaginrut> but in nptl-design draft, I thought it's m:n
+ <nalaginrut> anyway, it's draft
+ <nalaginrut> and seems being a draft for long time
+ <braunr> never read anything like that
+ <nalaginrut> I think it's my misread
+ <nalaginrut> I have to go, see you guys tomorrow
+ <braunr> The consensus among the kernel developers was that an M-on-N
+ implementation
+ <braunr> would not fit into the Linux kernel concept. The necessary
+ infrastructure which would
+ <braunr> have to be added comes with a cost which is too high.
+
+
+---
+
+# Resources
+
+ * <http://www.akkadia.org/drepper/nptl-design.pdf>
+
+ * <http://nptltracetool.sourceforge.net/>
+
+ * <http://posixtest.sourceforge.net/>