Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 14:07:28 +0100 From: Michael Schuster - TSC SunOS Germany <michael.schuster@germany.sun.com> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threads models and FreeBSD. (Next Step) Message-ID: <381EE210.3997A52F@germany.sun.com> References: <25676.941546688@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > In message <381EDBCE.FD7FBA68@vigrid.com>, "Daniel M. Eischen" writes: > > >> >Disagree. I want lightweight processes to have their own quantum > >> >not limited (in total) to the parent process quantum. > >> > >> That would clearly kill the "lightweight" in "lightweight process"... > > > >That doesn't mean they each have to have the same quantum as a non-MT > >process. > > That has nothing to do with it. > > There is not much point in making a lightweight process facility > if the resulting processes are not lightweight. I think we need a clarification here: In the sense that I've seen LWP used up to now (i.e. the Solaris sense, which I suggest we'll adhere to), an LWP is - figuratively speaking - the mapping between one or more user threads to _one_ kernel thread, i.e. a single scheduling entitity from the kernel's perspective, but not necessarily a single thread in the user's application's view. Every process has at least one LWP (and each LWP is associated with exactly one process). According to this definition, LWPs do have their own time quantum (since the kernel sees kthread quanta). I think you could loosely compare LWPs to "scheduler activations" in the Anderson paper (at least that's my understanding up to now). cheerio Michael PS: perhaps we need to define our terminology ... -- Michael Schuster / Michael.Schuster@germany.sun.com 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?381EE210.3997A52F>