Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 16:02:40 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au> To: Chuck Robey <chuckr@picnic.mat.net> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Thread scheduling Message-ID: <99Dec10.155600est.40337@border.alcanet.com.au> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9912092336190.16082-100000@picnic.mat.net>; from chuckr@picnic.mat.net on Fri, Dec 10, 1999 at 03:40:40PM %2B1100 References: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9912092336190.16082-100000@picnic.mat.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1999-Dec-10 15:40:40 +1100, Chuck Robey <chuckr@picnic.mat.net> wrote: >That is, is it important at all that all processors be doing the same >multithreading task (if it's multithreaded, and wants it) at exactly the >same time? I don't think this is guaranteed anywhere. In any case, IMHO it would be virtually impossible for a system to provide such a guarantee - consider a system which provided such a guarantee and currently has two threads executing on two CPUs. An interrupt then occurs on one CPU - what happens to the thread on the other CPU (which hasn't seen the interrupt)? What happens if (as a result of the interrupt) a higher priority process becomes runnable? Peter 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?99Dec10.155600est.40337>