From owner-freebsd-arch Sun Oct 31 19:49:10 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A374614ED2 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 19:49:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA02284 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 04:49:05 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id EAA70187 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 04:49:05 +0100 (MET) Received: from pcnet1.pcnet.com (pcnet1.pcnet.com [204.213.232.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A34F155B6 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 19:48:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com) Received: (from eischen@localhost) by pcnet1.pcnet.com (8.8.7/PCNet) id WAA20149; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 22:47:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 22:47:04 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen Message-Id: <199911010347.WAA20149@pcnet1.pcnet.com> To: julian@whistle.com, nate@mt.sri.com Subject: Re: Threads models and FreeBSD. Cc: eischen@vigrid.com, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > I think what is being asked for is the thread version of the > > signal catching capabilities of the present tsleep(). > > The situation is no worse than it is at present. > > Sort of, except that for every process you can only have one thread in > kernel space, so the only deadlocks that can occur happen in > userland, since the kernel has no primitives for doing 'synchronization' > and notification. (Unless you consider the SysV stuff, but as we've > seen, people tend to screw up using that as well. :) No, I want to be able to have multiple threads in a single process be in kernel space. Only one can be running, but others can be blocked. Dan Eischen eischen@vigrid.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message