Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 10:29:54 -0800 From: Amancio Hasty <hasty@rah.star-gate.com> 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 Message-ID: <199903051829.KAA82072@rah.star-gate.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 05 Mar 1999 18:16:18 GMT." <199903051816.LAA10950@usr06.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199903051829.KAA82072>