Date: 9 Nov 1998 08:32:43 -0000 From: Ville-Pertti Keinonen <will@iki.fi> To: james@westongold.com Cc: james@westongold.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Kernel threading (was Re: Thread Scheduler bug) Message-ID: <19981109083243.10482.qmail@ns.oeno.com> In-Reply-To: <32BABEF63EAED111B2C5204C4F4F5020180A@WGP01> (message from James Mansion on Fri, 6 Nov 1998 08:56:36 -0000)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Which was my point really. I'd rather waste the VM space and make the
> context switch more costly than have pthread_self and
> pthread_[sg]etspecific make kernel calls. Context switching is
> somewhat infrequent after all. If its not, the efficiency of these
> APIs is hardly your biggest worry.
I certainly was not suggesting putting anything like pthread_self in
the kernel. In fact almost any kludge would be preferable to that.
But there are better ways than what you were suggesting.
...
> It does mean that the page maps for multiple kernel threads executing in
> a process need to be different OR that a register is used somehow.
Here I'd probably vote for the segment register approach.
> As an application programmer it doesn't seem to matter, though as a
> C/C++ programmer I guess I'd rather see the dedicated use of a segment
> register since it seems likely to give the best performance and I'm
> not using them directly anyway. But I guess that's a whole ABI change.
...
Not an evil change, though, it would hardly break anything.
> Huh? I'm asking for pthread_*_[sg]etpshared, for P1003.1-1996. Are you
> objecting to them in principal?
No, you didn't mention that was what you meant.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19981109083243.10482.qmail>