Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 22:14:31 -0500 From: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@americantv.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FYI: regarding our rfork(2) Message-ID: <19970919221431.23526@right.PCS> In-Reply-To: <199709192210.PAA08418@usr06.primenet.com>; from Terry Lambert on Sep 09, 1997 at 10:10:13PM %2B0000 References: <199709191956.NAA20377@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199709192210.PAA08418@usr06.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sep 09, 1997 at 10:10:13PM +0000, Terry Lambert wrote: > This is an unsatisfying soloution, mostly because kernel > threads block on blocking calls from user threads. This > means that I can only ever have N blocking calls outstanding, > and a total of (M-N) threads, which are ready to run will > not get quantum, regardless of the scheduling class used. What about other kernel/user thread implementations? Eg: scheduler activations, as put forth by Anderson, et.al. From what they describe, there is no limit to the number of blocking calls a user-level process can make. Unfortunately, I feel that they have glossed over some of the implementation details in their paper, making it difficult to evaluate. -- Jonathan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970919221431.23526>