From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Nov 28 18:23:50 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 921C637B400 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:23:48 -0800 (PST) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id eAT2NfV00474; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:23:41 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:23:41 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein To: FengYue Cc: David Petrou , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: thread model questions Message-ID: <20001128182341.V8051@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <20001127163948.S8051@fw.wintelcom.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from fengyue@bluerose.windmoon.nu on Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 04:34:39PM -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * FengYue [001128 16:32] wrote: > > 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? No it wouldn't. The async nature of the call would prevent the process from blocking therefore the threads wouldn't block either blocking. -- -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