Transition plans: libkse->libpthread

[Petri Helenius]

> >From my comfortable position here in the peanut gallery, I've been
> thinking about this.  Now that we have libthr around (presumably for a
> long time), mightn't it be a good idea to keep libkse and libkse, libthr
> and libthr, and maybe even libc_r as libc_r, and have libpthread be a
> {sym,hard}link to one of the above?  Since we're ending up with multiple
> libraries implementing the pthreads API, with the presumption that
> they're at least nominally interchangeable, might we not want to make
> that switchability explicit?
>
>From where I´m looking at this (pthreads user) I don´t see value retaining
libc_r longer than neccessary for backwards compability. FreeBSD would
benefit greatly having the "default" threads implementation to be well performing
and using all available CPU on a machine.

What are the observed benefits on running a threaded application with 1:1
threads instead of the M:N libkse model? And if you need more scheduled
entities, wouldn´t you just crank up the concurrency parameter?

Pete