Re:Benchmarking OS primitives
by arghwhat on Thursday March 22, 2018 @06:19AM
(#16647326)
You cannot generalize scheduling primitives across UNIX implementations.
To quote the FreeBSD manual:
"Traditional UNIX® does not define any API nor implementation for threading, while POSIX® defines its threading API but the implementation is undefined."
macOS was at least temporarily considered a true UNIX, and the scheduling primitive there is a Mach task. I frankly don't remember much about FreeBSD anymore, but I would assume that the unit of scheduling there is somewhat identical to that of Linux... Just implemented nicer.
Re:Benchmarking OS primitives
by pjmlp on Thursday March 22, 2018 @06:22AM
(#16647344)
That is the whole point, Linux != UNIX, yet every time someone discuss some UNIX feature, there comes a Linux example as if Linux would the be representative of how UNIX works.
Re:Benchmarking OS primitives
by arghwhat on Friday March 23, 2018 @05:03AM
(#16656252)
That's not what happened here. In this case, someone discussed Windows, Linux and macOS features and implementation details, and someone (you) came around and started talking about UNIX. ;)
To quote the FreeBSD manual: "Traditional UNIX® does not define any API nor implementation for threading, while POSIX® defines its threading API but the implementation is undefined."
macOS was at least temporarily considered a true UNIX, and the scheduling primitive there is a Mach task. I frankly don't remember much about FreeBSD anymore, but I would assume that the unit of scheduling there is somewhat identical to that of Linux... Just implemented nicer.