Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 22:42:29 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> Cc: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>, Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com>, Arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: KSE threading support (first parts) Message-ID: <3AEA5845.D3377794@elischer.org> References: <15081.50170.297579.938254@nomad.yogotech.com> <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010427154434.12501B-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> <15081.53117.150505.145701@nomad.yogotech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nate Williams wrote:
>
> > > > Well, that's complete bullshit. KSE's are extremely short-running
> > > > affairs in kernel mode, especially when you consider the most likely
> > > > asynchronizing case (a simple blocking situation that will most commonly
> > > > be in a read() or write()).
> > >
> > > Not necessarily. My experience with developing and running applications
> > > on Solaris says that having multiple KSE's/process is a *huge* win.
> >
> > You do know that the proposed implementation isn't quite like
> > Solaris (KSEs don't get their own quantum). You better holler
> > if you want it ;-)
>
> I'm not sure how much a difference that makes, but to be honest, I
> haven't thought about the consequences of it much. :(
>
> Nate
If you implementN LWPs as N KSEGs with a KSE each, they do get
their own quanta so it can be arranged to do it either way.
--
__--_|\ Julian Elischer
/ \ julian@elischer.org
( OZ ) World tour 2000-2001
---> X_.---._/
v
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?3AEA5845.D3377794>