From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Apr 27 12:50:55 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from pcnet1.pcnet.com (pcnet1.pcnet.com [204.213.232.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5EC737B423 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 12:50:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com) Received: (from eischen@localhost) by pcnet1.pcnet.com (8.8.7/PCNet) id PAA18118; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 15:50:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 15:50:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen To: Nate Williams Cc: Matt Dillon , Julian Elischer , Arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: KSE threading support (first parts) In-Reply-To: <15081.50170.297579.938254@nomad.yogotech.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Nate Williams wrote: > > Well, that's complete bullshit. KSE's are extremely short-running > > affairs in kernel mode, especially when you consider the most likely > > asynchronizing case (a simple blocking situation that will most commonly > > be in a read() or write()). > > Not necessarily. My experience with developing and running applications > on Solaris says that having multiple KSE's/process is a *huge* win. You do know that the proposed implementation isn't quite like Solaris (KSEs don't get their own quantum). You better holler if you want it ;-) -- Dan Eischen To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message