Date: 02 Nov 1999 11:47:02 +0000 From: Randell Jesup <rjesup@wgate.com> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threads models and FreeBSD. (Next Step) Message-ID: <ybuyachf749.fsf@jesup.eng.tvol.net.jesup.eng.tvol.net> In-Reply-To: "Russell L. Carter"'s message of "Tue, 02 Nov 1999 07:38:19 -0700" References: <19991102143819.5D0F23B@chomsky.pinyon.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Russell L. Carter" <rcarter@chomsky.Pinyon.ORG> writes:
>%>> >Disagree. I want lightweight processes to have their own quantum
>%>> >not limited (in total) to the parent process quantum.
>%There is not much point in making a lightweight process facility
>%if the resulting processes are not lightweight.
Perhaps - but what defines 'lightweight'? I've always thought that
processes that share resources/memory were 'lightweight'. Also, I think
the proposal was that you could have 1 to N LWP's for a process with N
threads. Whatever you want to call them, there certainly seems to be
a use for 'something' between user-scheduled threads and processes.
>There isn't much point to doing this effort if the
>pthread_*sched* functions don't actually mean much in the
>global context.
This is a very good point.
>People building large scale distributed objects that
>are also high performance require fine grained schedulability
>of individual threads. I can provide references that demonstrate
>how low level thread scheduling architecture
>affect high level services.
While I wouldn't want you to go far out of your way, a reference
or two (or summary thereof) might help people.
--
Randell Jesup, Worldgate Communications, ex-Scala, ex-Amiga OS team ('88-94)
rjesup@wgate.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?ybuyachf749.fsf>