Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 14:00:03 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy <jeremyp@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threads goals version II Message-ID: <99Nov1.135453est.40379@border.alcanet.com.au> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9910311817030.8816-100000@home.elischer.org> References: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9910311817030.8816-100000@home.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1999-Nov-01 13:18:29 +1100, Julian Elischer wrote: >2/ Ability to simultaneously schedule M threads over N Processors. and have Q (where Q = min(M,N)) threads simultaneously executing. >3/ One blocking thread cannot block another thread. > Blocking of one thread does not imply that other threads be >blocked. How about `a thread can remain runnable even if other threads in the process are blocked'. >12/ Processorr affinity for threads. There are two issues here: a) The SMP scheduler should maximise the probability that a thread will be re-scheduled onto the same CPU as last executed on. b) There should be a mechanism whereby a thread can optionally be restricted to only execute on a specified subset of the available CPUs. I believe that both of these are general SMP issues that should be covered in the next thread on your discussion list. The only impact for threads is that the affinity mechanism should have a thread, rather than process, granularity. >13/ Thread scheduling classes. > 13A/ Assigned 'per thread' This is basically point 9. 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?99Nov1.135453est.40379>