Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 00:19:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: "restricted" kernel threads implementation from NetBSD via newconfig Message-ID: <199906280719.AAA18001@apollo.backplane.com> References: <Pine.BSF.3.95.990627233124.8298O-100000@current1.whistle.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:please yes..
:eventually we'll be using it to fire off a thread for every interrupt
:source if we go the BSDI way. (as dicussed with various people at USENIX)
:
:I was actually thinking about this today...
:
:now this is threads within the kernel, and not kernel support for user
:threads right?
:
:julian
I think we desparately need a kernel threads implementation. *Any*
implementation, so we can start messing around with it! Even if it isn't
the one we eventually choose.
Once we have something we can add interrupt-thread support to it and
then move some of the more innocuous interrupt-based device drivers
over to it to generate test cases for the various SMP mechanisms people
have been discussing. I was thinking, specifically, of moving a few
of the ethernet devices, which tend to have relatively simplistic
interrupt-level code - a perfect test case for us because it will be
fairly easy to port and fairly easy to measure performance under load.
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<dillon@backplane.com>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199906280719.AAA18001>