Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 21:21:52 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Chuck Robey <chuckr@picnic.mat.net> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, julian@whistle.com Subject: Re: Threads goals version II Message-ID: <199911010421.VAA15119@mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9910312317180.29073-100000@picnic.mat.net> References: <199911010413.VAA15024@mt.sri.com> <Pine.BSF.4.10.9910312317180.29073-100000@picnic.mat.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > > 6/ (contentious) multiple theads should be bound to within the resource > > > > limits of the single process. > > > > > > Multiple processes/LWPs should be allowed to have their own quantum and > > > not count towards the [parent] process quantum, right? > > > > As I read that, no. A multi-threaded process shouldn't be given any > > more 'resources' than a single-threaded process. > > With the notable exception that a multithreaded process must be able to be > concurrently running on multiple processors simpultaneously, right? I'm not sure. Once could argue that you get X% of the total CPU, which means that if you're normally allotted 20%, a single-threaded process would get 20% of a single CPU, and a threaded process might get 2x10% of each CPU (depending on whether or not the threads need to be on multiple CPU's, which may be the case.) It's an interesting problem.... Nate 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?199911010421.VAA15119>