Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:58:53 -0600 (MDT) From: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com>, Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com>, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, Arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: KSE threading support (first parts) Message-ID: <15081.53117.150505.145701@nomad.yogotech.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010427154434.12501B-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> References: <15081.50170.297579.938254@nomad.yogotech.com> <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010427154434.12501B-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > Well, that's complete bullshit. KSE's are extremely short-running > > > affairs in kernel mode, especially when you consider the most likely > > > asynchronizing case (a simple blocking situation that will most commonly > > > be in a read() or write()). > > > > Not necessarily. My experience with developing and running applications > > on Solaris says that having multiple KSE's/process is a *huge* win. > > You do know that the proposed implementation isn't quite like > Solaris (KSEs don't get their own quantum). You better holler > if you want it ;-) I'm not sure how much a difference that makes, but to be honest, I haven't thought about the consequences of it much. :( Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15081.53117.150505.145701>