Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 08:21:58 -0500 From: "Daniel M. Eischen" <eischen@vigrid.com> To: Michael Schuster - TSC SunOS Germany <michael.schuster@germany.sun.com> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threads models and FreeBSD. (Next Step) Message-ID: <381EE576.7C1AF9EE@vigrid.com> References: <25676.941546688@critter.freebsd.dk> <381EE210.3997A52F@germany.sun.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Michael Schuster - TSC SunOS Germany wrote: > 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). Yes. And I'm sure you're familiar with the various scheduling classes and the dispatch table (which shows the quantums) under Solaris. Note that if we want to support PTHREAD_SCOPE_SYSTEM, lighweight processes need to be able to contend for resources among all other threads in the system within the same scheduling domain. This, to me, implies their own quantum. And we can see that this is true for Solaris. > I think you could loosely compare LWPs to "scheduler activations" in the > Anderson paper (at least that's my understanding up to now). Agreed. Dan Eischen eischen@vigrid.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?381EE576.7C1AF9EE>