From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Jan 22 15: 8:58 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.84]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AB9137B400; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:08:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from pool0657.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.194.147] helo=mindspring.com) by gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16TA26-0007NH-00; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:08:50 -0800 Message-ID: <3C4DF0FE.6E9B0D35@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:08:46 -0800 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-CCK-MCD {Sony} (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Julian Elischer Cc: arch@freebsd.org, dillon@freebsd.org Subject: Re: STOP and SLEEP in the kernel References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Julian Elischer wrote: > It seems to us that we need to think carefully about whether suspending a > thread in cvwait or msleep is a good idea. ncp_poll() seems a really odd > place for a thread to suspend. The difficult part for me in a > multithreaded system another thread could call exit() while the thread is > stopped there and I need to be able to break it out safely. This means > that I need to be able to get it to back out to the user boundary at > least, so that I can be sure it's released all resources before I shoot > it. I believe this is intentional, due to the need to run soft interrupts on a fairly consistant basis. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message