From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Nov 2 5: 8:39 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BCD0153C9 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 05:08:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA19065 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:08:26 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id OAA79707 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:08:26 +0100 (MET) Received: from mercury.Sun.COM (mercury.Sun.COM [192.9.25.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFC15153A7 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 05:07:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from michael.schuster@germany.sun.com) Received: from emuc05-home.Germany.Sun.COM ([129.157.51.10]) by mercury.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA03344 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 05:07:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from germany.sun.com (hacker [129.157.167.97]) by emuc05-home.Germany.Sun.COM (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8/ENSMAIL,v1.7) with ESMTP id OAA24489 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:07:26 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <381EE210.3997A52F@germany.sun.com> Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 14:07:28 +0100 From: Michael Schuster - TSC SunOS Germany Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.8 sun4u) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threads models and FreeBSD. (Next Step) References: <25676.941546688@critter.freebsd.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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