Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 11:02:41 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG, Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> Subject: Re: ithread preemption Message-ID: <XFMail.20020906110241.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <3D7806D1.C87A9A6A@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 06-Sep-2002 Terry Lambert wrote: > Andrew Gallatin wrote: >> John Baldwin writes: >> > Solaris doesn't run on alpha, but it also a bit different in its approach. >> > I do wonder if there is a way we can violate an assumption in PAL due to >> > migration though. That is, a thread could return to PAL on a different >> > CPU than the one the interrupt was originally sent to. This might explain >> > why only SMP has problems. >> > >> >> Hey ... I think you have it on the nose! That makes the most sense >> I've heard yet. >> >> Do we have any way to bind a thread to a cpu? > > Alfred has some patches. That are just as tore up by KSE as mine are, probably more so. > IMO, threads should not be so bound to a CPU, as a migration event > should be an exception, rather than the rule, and always handled > by the scheduler. Yes, we all know this and plan to do this when the scheduler isn't under so much upheaval (read 6.0 when KSE finishes breaking^Wchanging things). -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-alpha" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.20020906110241.jhb>