Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 14:12:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SMPing libpthread Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0304261411400.28449-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <3EAAD0EE.49EDA0D@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
terry thet are talking userland.. On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, Terry Lambert wrote: > David Xu wrote: > > From: "Daniel Eischen" <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com> > > > David, I noticed that we hold the scheduling lock before and > [...] > Note that I think you want idempotence, not atomicity, in this > case, anyway. > [...] > I can't help feeling, though, that this should be seperated > out. I don't know how to deal with the idempotence issues > "correctly", and still maintain a seperation between threads > implementation and scheduler implementation off the top of > my head (at least, without changing the scheduler API), but > I'm sure it's doable, with a little thought. > > -- Terry > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-threads@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-threads-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0304261411400.28449-100000>