From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Jan 7 15: 8:42 2002 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 973AF37B416 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 15:08:32 -0800 (PST) Received: (from eischen@localhost) by pcnet1.pcnet.com (8.12.1/8.12.1) id g07N7O9U014611; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 18:07:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 18:07:24 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen To: Julian Elischer Cc: Nate Williams , Dan Eischen , Peter Wemm , Archie Cobbs , Alfred Perlstein , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Request for review: getcontext, setcontext, etc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 7 Jan 2002, Julian Elischer wrote: > "Dan, In your example, are you indicating more munching on behalf > of thread 2 or continued munching in the FPU as a carryover from > thread1? (lazy context swapping?)" Nate answered it correctly, so I didn't reply to it. Thread 1 only munches data for thread 1, and likewise for thread 2. I used pthread_yield() just to show that it was not a signal or preemption (which in libc_r, are generated by signals too). I could have used pthread_mutex_lock(), read(), write(), malloc(), etc., instead of pthread_yield(). > I understand the concepts I was just not sure which he > was representing.. -- Dan Eischen To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message