From owner-freebsd-arch Sat Apr 28 6: 9:16 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from pcnet1.pcnet.com (pcnet1.pcnet.com [204.213.232.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEEF637B423 for ; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 06:09:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com) Received: (from eischen@localhost) by pcnet1.pcnet.com (8.8.7/PCNet) id JAA03253; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 09:08:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 09:08:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen To: Julian Elischer Cc: Nate Williams , Matt Dillon , Arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: KSE threading support (first parts) In-Reply-To: <3AEA5845.D3377794@elischer.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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