Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 12:06:13 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy <jeremyp@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au> To: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threads stuff Message-ID: <99Nov29.115905est.40337@border.alcanet.com.au> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9911281602440.544-100000@current1.whistle.com> References: <199911281721.JAA45015@apollo.backplane.com> <Pine.BSF.4.10.9911281602440.544-100000@current1.whistle.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1999-Nov-29 11:22:46 +1100, Julian Elischer wrote: >No the blocked thread 'returns' to the UTS, notifying it of its blocking. >There has to be a UTS no matter what, even if it's copntrolling the >thread contexts by remote control in the kernel (yur suggestion). >If the context is all in user memory, it's pageable. In the kernel it's > wired kernel memory.. which is more valuable? For the UTS to function sensibly (and with maximum efficiency), it effectively has to be permanently resident as well - and permanently resident user memory is just as valuable as wired kernel memory :-). Admittedly, (most of) the UTS probably will wind up staying in-core anyway due to frequent use, and if it wind up paged out, its probably not as critical (except maybe to that process). That said, I'd like to see much of the kernel become pageable - but that is another can of worms. Peter 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?99Nov29.115905est.40337>