Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 10:41:55 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG, Igor Sysoev <is@rambler-co.ru> Subject: Re: Scheduler framework. Message-ID: <20021009174155.GJ95327@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20021009132958.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0210091001270.37238-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> <XFMail.20021009132958.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> [021009 10:30] wrote: > > On 09-Oct-2002 Julian Elischer wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Igor Sysoev wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Julian Elischer wrote: > >> > >> > If a thread mailbox IS provided: > >> > the syscall is entered. > >> > the thread blocks. A second thread is invoked and attached > >> > to the KSE, which is disconnected from the original thread. > >> > >> Sorry, where did this second thread come from ? > > > > there is a thread_allocator that allocates threads on demand. > > > > Actually the process ahs a couple of spare threads "Up its sleave" > > so it doesn't have to go to teh thread allocator every time.. > > Which kind of defeats the point of letting the slab allocator manage > memory from a larger whole-view perspective. :-P Kind of, but not entirely, since one can guarantee exclusive access to a private pool and therefor doesn't need locks. I'd be nice if there was a macro or something to do this in a official sanctioned API. -- -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' 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?20021009174155.GJ95327>