From owner-freebsd-arch Sat Nov 20 19: 3:25 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B61514E92 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 19:03:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA22489 for ; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 04:03:22 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id EAA11854 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 04:03:22 +0100 (MET) Received: from alpo.whistle.com (alpo.whistle.com [207.76.204.38]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7515014E92 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 19:03:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from julian@whistle.com) Received: from current1.whiste.com (current1.whistle.com [207.76.205.22]) by alpo.whistle.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA34414; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 19:03:13 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 19:03:13 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer To: Matthew Jacob Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Threads stuff In-Reply-To: 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 Sat, 20 Nov 1999, Matthew Jacob wrote: > > Sure- that's kernel stuff, but it doesn't really work much in the area I > would be interested, namely making interrupt and other kernel threads > (e.g., for CAM device inventory management) for all drivers that could use > them (an interrupt thread per interrupt entry point is not unreasonable), > replacing all spl type locking with mutex_init (based on device interrupt > levels) and mutex_enter/mutex_exit usages, perhaps replacing sleep/wakeup > which is a per-process thingie with cv_wait/cv_signal.. you know, that > kinda low level kernel I/O stuff- more nuts and bolts and less > theoretical. When the discussion gets around to these things and policies > about whether SMP safe and SMP-unsafe drivers can coexist, then I'll be > more than happy to waste everyone's time with my opinions. But it's all inter-related.. The KSE allocator would be the same KSE allocator that would be used to innitially allocate KSEs for interrupt handling. (My secret agenda starts to show). My aim is to get the BSDI "lazily evaluated threads" interrupt scheme. however the threads they would be evaluating to would be the same KSEs that would be allocated to the User thread scheme.. "A thread is a thread is a thread" Believe me my heart is in the "low level more nuts and bolts". I just see a convergence of needs here. We certainly need someone to help with the KSEs and specifically the Mutexy stuff. That should be quite applicable to both ends.. Julian To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message