Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 09:08:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com>, Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com>, Arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: KSE threading support (first parts) Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010428084746.546A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <3AEA5845.D3377794@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Julian Elischer wrote: > 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. As long as I am allowed to implement it this way in libpthread then I don't really have a problem. -- Dan Eischen 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?Pine.SUN.3.91.1010428084746.546A-100000>