Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 14:00:33 -0800 (PST) From: Kris Kennaway <kris@hub.freebsd.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threads models and FreeBSD. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9910311355440.13532-100000@hub.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9910311201120.8816-100000@home.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, Julian Elischer wrote: > So what are the definitions that a thread enabled environment should > possess? This not a definative list, and before we go on to solve the > worlds threading problems, I'd like everyone to add their thoughts to this > list so that we can agree about what problems we are trying to solve. I'd appreciate it if Terry (or someone else) could clarify exactly the differences between the "scheduler activations" model described in the paper Daniel Eischen recently pointed out (which I thought was very well written): http://www.freebsd.org/~deischen/p95-anderson.pdf and the model he seems to prefer (async call gates). I've been rereading some of the old discussions about this, and they seem fairly similar. I'm not likely to be able to bring much to the discussion, but I'd appreciate the extra hint so I can understand it better :-) Kris ---- "Lisa, if you don't like your job, you don't strike - you just go in every day and do it real half-assed. It's the American Way." -- Homer Simpson 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.4.10.9910311355440.13532-100000>