Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 00:28:17 -0500 (EST) From: Chuck Robey <chuckr@picnic.mat.net> To: Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Thread scheduling Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9912100026210.16082-100000@picnic.mat.net> In-Reply-To: <99Dec10.155600est.40337@border.alcanet.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 10 Dec 1999, Peter Jeremy wrote: > 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? I can think of several ways for it to be done, so lets concentrate on whether it's needed or desireable. I think all the caching is done per processor, so that wouldn't be an issue, right? Hiw about memory usage? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include C programming, Electronics, 213 Lakeside Dr. Apt. T-1 | communications, and signal processing. Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run picnic.mat.net: FreeBSD-current(i386) and (301) 220-2114 | jaunt.mat.net : FreeBSD-current(Alpha) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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?Pine.BSF.4.10.9912100026210.16082-100000>