From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Nov 21 17: 1:27 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from InterJet.elischer.org (c421509-a.pinol1.sfba.home.com [24.7.86.9]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A495237B416 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 17:00:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1]) by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA40292; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 16:50:53 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 16:50:51 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer To: Alfred Perlstein Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Kernel Thread scheduler In-Reply-To: <20011121184508.T13393@elvis.mu.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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 [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