Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 17:06:57 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: Arun Sharma <adsharma@sharmas.dhs.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threads Message-ID: <199911290106.RAA47262@apollo.backplane.com> References: <Pine.SUN.3.91.991124134533.26314A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> <199911241905.LAA20045@apollo.backplane.com> <14396.15070.190669.25400@avalon.east> <199911241941.LAA20231@apollo.backplane.com> <19991124212521.W301@sturm.canonware.com> <199911280338.TAA40637@apollo.backplane.com> <19991127205752.A7145@sharmas.dhs.org> <199911281641.IAA44909@apollo.backplane.com> <19991128102612.A8570@sharmas.dhs.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:On Sun, Nov 28, 1999 at 08:41:57AM -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote:
:> I think we are already operating under the assumption that the current
:> scheduler must be rewritten, or at least significantly modified. Amoung
:> other things we have to get rid of all the extra junk that is in assembler
:> that could easily be C (I seem to recall someone actually working towards
:> that goal, was any of that ever committed? It seemed pretty good).
:
:Yes, that was commited. But I think it can be better. Right now, the code
:goes from
:
:C -> asm (context switch out) -> C (pick a new process) -> asm (switch in) -> C
:
:I think it should be
:
:lock
:C (pick a new process p)
:asm (switch from curproc to p)
:unlock
:
: -Arun
Yes, I agree with you completely. Limiting the asm to just switch between
two processes and throwing the rest into C is a good goal to have.
-Matt
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?199911290106.RAA47262>