Re: revivesa status 2008/07/09

[christos%astron.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

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.

christos