From owner-freebsd-arch Sun Nov 28 10:26:26 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 13908150DD for ; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 10:26:23 -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 TAA25638 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 19:26:21 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id TAA58577 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 19:26:20 +0100 (MET) Received: from c62443-a.frmt1.sfba.home.com (c62443-a.frmt1.sfba.home.com [24.0.69.165]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F59D150DD for ; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 10:26:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from adsharma@c62443-a.frmt1.sfba.home.com) Received: (from adsharma@localhost) by c62443-a.frmt1.sfba.home.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA08579; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 10:26:12 -0800 Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 10:26:12 -0800 From: Arun Sharma To: Matthew Dillon Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threads Message-ID: <19991128102612.A8570@sharmas.dhs.org> References: <199911241905.LAA20045@apollo.backplane.com> <14396.15070.190669.25400@avalon.east> <199911241941.LAA20231@apollo.backplane.com> <19991124212521.W301@sturm.canonware.com> <199911280338.TAA40637@apollo.backplane.com> <19991127205752.A7145@sharmas.dhs.org> <199911281641.IAA44909@apollo.backplane.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.6i In-Reply-To: <199911281641.IAA44909@apollo.backplane.com>; from Matthew Dillon on Sun, Nov 28, 1999 at 08:41:57AM -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sun, Nov 28, 1999 at 08:41:57AM -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote: > I think we are already operating under the assumption that the current > scheduler must be rewritten, or at least significantly modified. Amoung > other things we have to get rid of all the extra junk that is in assembler > that could easily be C (I seem to recall someone actually working towards > that goal, was any of that ever committed? It seemed pretty good). Yes, that was commited. But I think it can be better. Right now, the code goes from C -> asm (context switch out) -> C (pick a new process) -> asm (switch in) -> C I think it should be lock C (pick a new process p) asm (switch from curproc to p) unlock -Arun To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message