Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 12:47:29 -0600 From: "Richard Seaman, Jr." <dick@tar.com> To: Kip Macy <kip@lyris.com> Cc: "Richard Seaman, Jr." <dick@tar.com>, Steffen Merkel <d_f0rce@gmx.de>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Kernel threads Message-ID: <19991227124729.I5975@tar.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.4.05.9912271014001.24487-100000@luna.lyris.com>; from kip@lyris.com on Mon, Dec 27, 1999 at 10:30:54AM -0800 References: <19991227120931.H5975@tar.com> <Pine.SOL.4.05.9912271014001.24487-100000@luna.lyris.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Dec 27, 1999 at 10:30:54AM -0800, Kip Macy wrote: > They may be preemptive, but I saw a lot of instances with Lyris where one > thread could easily monopolize processor time at the expense of all > others and I had to add sleeps in at places. Is this recently, or a while ago? FreeBSD user threads used to use SIGVTALRM for its pre-emption signal. This didn't count time in syscalls. So, if you had a syscall (eg I/O) intensive thread, it would hog processor time. I think that has been changed. -- Richard Seaman, Jr. email: dick@tar.com 5182 N. Maple Lane phone: 262-367-5450 Chenequa WI 53058 fax: 262-367-5852 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19991227124729.I5975>