From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Apr 27 10: 6: 7 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 E3E3537B423; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:06:00 -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 LAA21824; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 11:05:57 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from nate@nomad.yogotech.com) Received: (from nate@localhost) by nomad.yogotech.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA18857; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 11:05:52 -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: <15081.42735.860662.876478@nomad.yogotech.com> Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 11:05:51 -0600 (MDT) To: Matt Dillon Cc: Nate Williams , "David O'Brien" , Julian Elischer , Arch@FreeBSD.ORG, Daniel Eischen Subject: Re: KSE threading support (first parts) In-Reply-To: <200104271701.f3RH1Tk05185@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> <15081.39397.944224.776391@nomad.yogotech.com> <200104271701.f3RH1Tk05185@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 > :> :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 > > Try reading my posting again, Nate, carefully. You missed the whole > thing. I read it, and this is what I hear you saying in a nutshell. KSEs belonging to the same process are serialized, and can not be run concurrently. What I'm saying: KSEs belonging to the same process can be run concurrently if we have multiple processors. Where did I miss what you were saying? Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message