Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 21:06:34 -0500 (EST) From: Chuck Robey <chuckr@picnic.mat.net> To: "Daniel M. Eischen" <eischen@vigrid.com> Cc: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com>, Jason Evans <jasone@canonware.com>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threads Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9911292101170.20163-100000@picnic.mat.net> In-Reply-To: <3842B7EE.F0D02992@vigrid.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
No context here, because I want to ask another question regarding the proposals, but it's context is too stale to repeat. I've finished reading the SA paper, and one question bothers me. It looks like the kernel is making upcalls into the UTS. It further looks like there could be multiple copies of the UTS active, either because of multiple processors, unsynchronized process swaps of processes with UTS's that are active, and upcalls coming in before a previous upcall can clear the UTS. I did see that the UTS is required under SA to be re-entrant (obviously) but I didn't see any synchronization requirements on the UTS specified, and it does look like it would need some global state that would need protection. Did I miss that part of the paper? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include C programming, Electronics, 213 Lakeside Dr. Apt. T-1 | communications, and signal processing. Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run picnic.mat.net: FreeBSD-current(i386) and (301) 220-2114 | jaunt.mat.net : FreeBSD-current(Alpha) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.BSF.4.10.9911292101170.20163-100000>