From owner-freebsd-arch Sat Nov 20 19: 5:22 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 DC40214E48 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 19:05:19 -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 EAA22520 for ; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 04:05:18 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id EAA11884 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 04:05:18 +0100 (MET) Received: from feral.com (feral.com [192.67.166.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E56EB158A9 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 19:05:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mjacob@feral.com) Received: from semuta.feral.com (semuta [192.67.166.70]) by feral.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA24098; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 19:05:51 -0800 Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 19:05:51 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Jacob Reply-To: mjacob@feral.com To: Julian Elischer Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 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 > > > > 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.. Okay. I'll start to pay more attention. Sorry if I was OTL.... -matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message