From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Mar  5 10:31:35 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from rah.star-gate.com (rah.star-gate.com [209.249.129.138])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20B6B15188
	for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri,  5 Mar 1999 10:31:30 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from hasty@rah.star-gate.com)
Received: from rah.star-gate.com (localhost.star-gate.com [127.0.0.1])
          by rah.star-gate.com (8.9.1/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA82072;
          Fri, 5 Mar 1999 10:29:55 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from hasty@rah.star-gate.com)
Message-Id: <199903051829.KAA82072@rah.star-gate.com>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98
To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
Cc: dyson@iquest.net, dick@tar.com, jplevyak@inktomi.com,
	hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: lockf and kernel threads 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 05 Mar 1999 18:16:18 GMT."
             <199903051816.LAA10950@usr06.primenet.com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 10:29:54 -0800
From: Amancio Hasty <hasty@rah.star-gate.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

> Basically, ring 2 is used to supply th stack and the program counter.
> 
> I think you could queue it, but you would lose your interleave.

I think that we can use some sort of heuristic to provide interleaving.


> I think that completion functions are less useful than select type
> functions.  For VMS, this would be SYS$WAITEFLOR, which waits for
> an event flag to be set by an AST callback into event-flag-setting
> code.
> 
> You have to use a "wait for completion" interface of some kind if
> you intend to implement threads, since, the wait is the top of the
> call conversion scheduler pyramid.

You have a good point however wouldn't prioritized ASTs be able to accomplish
same thing?

	Cheers,
	Amancio





To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message