Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 16:50:51 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Kernel Thread scheduler Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0111211648550.35591-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <20011121184508.T13393@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
We believe so, but have not proven it to ourselves. It is considered to be a valid goal and if it seems to be easily reachable then we will modify structires etc. to allow it.. On Wed, 21 Nov 2001, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > * Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> [011121 18:40] wrote: > > > > > > Peter, John (Baldwin) and I got to gether yesterday and thrashed > > out the mechanisms behind the KSE/thread scheduler. > > This allows us to go ahead and start coding again, now that we know what > > we are aiming at. > > > > Here is the basic mechanism. > [snip] > > Since my request is about one one thousandth as complex as this I'm > just going to ask: > > Will this stuff be usable as a lightweight mechanism inside the kernel? > > Case in point, could nfsd be changed to only have one process (instead > of many) while still being able to block and get an upcall? > > -Alfred > 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.4.21.0111211648550.35591-100000>