From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Nov 28 16:33:19 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from shell.unixbox.com (shell.unixbox.com [207.211.45.65]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AAC337B404 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 16:33:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (fengyue@localhost) by shell.unixbox.com (8.11.1/8.11.0) with ESMTP id eAT0YdQ55912; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 16:34:39 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 16:34:39 -0800 (PST) From: FengYue X-Sender: fengyue@shell.unixbox.com To: Alfred Perlstein Cc: David Petrou , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: thread model questions In-Reply-To: <20001127163948.S8051@fw.wintelcom.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote: ->> I thought it's preemptive purely at user-level since the threads are ->> scheduled by thread lib at user-level only. No? -> ->What are you asking? Give a scenario and I'll explain what should ->happen. -> Hmm, actually I don't know in which case it'd be considered as "preemptive at kernel level"... In the case where a thread calls a syscall and gets blocked, the entire process gets blocked not just that thread. In the case where the syscalls are converted to asynchronous calls, would this be the case? Thanks ->-- ->-Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] ->"I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message