From owner-freebsd-arch Sun Nov 28 21:17:31 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0563F153DD for ; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 21:17:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA09397 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 06:17:28 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id GAA61608 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 06:17:28 +0100 (MET) Received: from alpo.whistle.com (alpo.whistle.com [207.76.204.38]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23492153DD for ; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 21:17:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from julian@whistle.com) Received: from current1.whiste.com (current1.whistle.com [207.76.205.22]) by alpo.whistle.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA31924; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 21:17:18 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 21:17:18 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer To: "Daniel M. Eischen" Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threads stuff In-Reply-To: <3841CFB4.F5B9A2BD@vigrid.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sun, 28 Nov 1999, Daniel M. Eischen wrote: > > > > bleah.. signals.. :-( > > If you are going to make signals compulsary then you might as well go the > > whole way and let the kernel keep the userland contexts as well. > > Which is Matt's suggestion. > > Like I said, I don't want signals; a scheduling upcall would be better. > For threads blocked in the kernel, I don't see much of a problem with > keeping the trapframe in the KSE since it's already on the kernel stack. > I don't want to keep contexts of threads not blocked in the kernel, though. a signal is just another upcall.. I'm using the terms interchangeably. > > > so, do the pictures help? > > Yes, I understood them just fine :) I'm still not sold on the new > syscall gate and IOCB, because I think we have to make at least one > system call when threads are switched or resumed. > I'm not completely sold on them either. I just have a gut feeling on it based on doing this for 25 years. > Dan Eischen > eischen@vigrid.com > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message