From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Nov 21 16:45:35 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [216.33.66.196]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3AED37B418 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 16:45:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192) id D0F9681D0E; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 18:45:08 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 18:45:08 -0600 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Julian Elischer Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Kernel Thread scheduler Message-ID: <20011121184508.T13393@elvis.mu.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from julian@elischer.org on Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 04:39:18PM -0800 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 [011121 18:40] wrote: > > > Peter, John (Baldwin) and I got to gether yesterday and thrashed > out the mechanisms behind the KSE/thread scheduler. > This allows us to go ahead and start coding again, now that we know what > we are aiming at. > > Here is the basic mechanism. [snip] Since my request is about one one thousandth as complex as this I'm just going to ask: Will this stuff be usable as a lightweight mechanism inside the kernel? Case in point, could nfsd be changed to only have one process (instead of many) while still being able to block and get an upcall? -Alfred To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message