From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Mon, 23 Aug 2004 13:28:50 +0100 (BST) Received: from p508B66F0.dip.t-dialin.net ([IPv6:::ffff:80.139.102.240]:5174 "EHLO mail.linux-mips.net") by linux-mips.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 23 Aug 2004 13:28:45 +0100 Received: from fluff.linux-mips.net (fluff.linux-mips.net [127.0.0.1]) by mail.linux-mips.net (8.12.11/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i7NCShqU021626; Mon, 23 Aug 2004 14:28:43 +0200 Received: (from ralf@localhost) by fluff.linux-mips.net (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i7NCShYW021623; Mon, 23 Aug 2004 14:28:43 +0200 Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 14:28:43 +0200 From: Ralf Baechle To: Alec Voropay Cc: Dominic Sweetman , linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: anybody tried NPTL? Message-ID: <20040823122843.GB20905@linux-mips.org> References: <20040804152936.D6269@mvista.com> <16676.46694.564448.344602@arsenal.mips.com> <006f01c485f9$41348b50$3c01a8c0@portege> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <006f01c485f9$41348b50$3c01a8c0@portege> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 5718 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: ralf@linux-mips.org Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 06:31:45PM +0400, Alec Voropay wrote: > > Well, this is an area of substantial interest to MIPS Technologies. > > We are working on our multi-threading extension to the MIPS > > architecture, and one of our longer-term aims is to achieve really > > good NPTL performance. > > Sorry for a bit offtopic..., as far as I remember, the Windows NT > MIPS edition has a working multithread implementation. Is this > implementation very copyrighted and is it possible to use something > ftom there for the NPTL implementation ? In addition to what Dom has already answered - there are very significant differences between the multithreading as implemented in the Windows OS family and the varioius threading implementations for Linux like classic libpthreads, Linuxthreads, NPTL, Mozilla and more. If we legally could look at MS's code I'd not expect to find much useful for us there ... Ralf