On Feb 20, 2007, at 7:42 PM, Bucky Katz wrote:

> Matt Thomas <matt@3am-software.com> writes:
>
>> SA is/was an extremely unwieldy mechanism.  It make the kernel
>> scheduler considerably more complex and had tentacles in a myriad of
>> places it shouldn't have.  It was an interesting experiment; however
>> not all experiments succeed and SA was an unfortunate failure.
>
> Yes. SA does not equal M:N threads, and as I've said elsewhere, if it
> were my system, I'd burn down SA but salvage M:N through a different
> mechanism.

...and I think there have been discussions about doing so in NetBSD in  
the future.  I think Matt Thomas even spoke to this earlier in this  
thread.

-- thorpej