From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Apr 27 9:10:36 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns.yogotech.com (ns.yogotech.com [206.127.123.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F99937B422; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 09:10:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nate@yogotech.com) Received: from nomad.yogotech.com (nomad.yogotech.com [206.127.123.131]) by ns.yogotech.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA20944; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:10:20 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from nate@nomad.yogotech.com) Received: (from nate@localhost) by nomad.yogotech.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA18653; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:10:14 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from nate) From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15081.39397.944224.776391@nomad.yogotech.com> Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:10:13 -0600 (MDT) To: Matt Dillon Cc: "David O'Brien" , Julian Elischer , Arch@FreeBSD.ORG, Daniel Eischen Subject: Re: KSE threading support (first parts) In-Reply-To: <200104270015.f3R0FAi62512@earth.backplane.com> References: <3AE71067.FF4BD029@elischer.org> <20010425110940.L1790@fw.wintelcom.net> <3AE85776.92D6BD90@elischer.org> <20010426120630.A92915@dragon.nuxi.com> <200104270015.f3R0FAi62512@earth.backplane.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 12) "Channel Islands" XEmacs Lucid Reply-To: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams) Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > :Uh people. > : > :We really, really NEED to agree on the design here. Jason's paper > :(http://people.freebsd.org/~jasone/refs/freebsd_kse/freebsd_kse.html) is > :explains all this. > : > :Before any more work is done on KSE's I really feel people should either > :agree fully with the paper, or debate its contents first. > : > :I really doubt a single person will develop KSE, so it is imperative > :there is a common sheet of music. > : > :-- > :-- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) > > I've read it. I was under the impression from prior discussions that > KSEs belonging to the same process had to be serialized... that you > couldn't run them concurrently with each other. What's the point of SMP then? This would give us essentially a 'single-threaded' process, since only one thread/process can be running at any one point in time. Arguable, this is still better than the current situation where if a thread blocks, the entire process blocks, but if we've got an idle CPU, why not allow another thread run in a second KSE on the idle processor? > I can't imagine how > we could possibly run KSEs belonging to the same process concurrently > anyway. Think 'multi-threaded' applications. It's trivial to design a program where multiple threads are independant of one another. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message