Date: Sat, 08 Feb 1997 13:32:42 -0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> To: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net> Cc: Craig Shaver <craig@progroup.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: fcntl, F_SETFL, O_NONBLOCK & /dev/null Message-ID: <32FCF0FA.446B9B3D@whistle.com> References: <199702080220.VAA14428@dyson.iquest.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John S. Dyson wrote: > > > > > Is there any work being done for implementing kernel threads? I would > > think this would be very important for a robust, real-world usable, > > thread package. > > > That is one of my interests. Doug Santry is also interested. Certainly > don't want to 'claim' the project until I start. I have some ideas, > and in conjunction with some of Doug's work, I think that we could > have a really good thread's capability. I have a VM experiment to > do first (relocatable kernel stack, totally shared VM space.) If > that works, we'll have a start on a really good mechanism. YES! that is the crucial point.. (though there are questions about what to do about thread signal handlers) making rfork(SHAREED_VM) work is the first important step that should make rfork(RFMEM|RFPROC) blindingly fast .. MACH simply allocated a separate kernel stack for each process, with a guard page.. (touch it and the process dies)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?32FCF0FA.446B9B3D>