Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 16:37:09 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@hub.freebsd.org> Cc: "Daniel M. Eischen" <eischen@vigrid.com>, Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threads models and FreeBSD. (Next Step) Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.991102162727.26632A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9911021310090.73778-100000@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 2 Nov 1999, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Tue, 2 Nov 1999, Daniel M. Eischen wrote: > > > How about [from the "scheduler activations" paper] Flexibility? > > I assume by this you mean "the ability to replace the user-level code with > another model". In theory, that's a good goal, and it's one we shouldn't > work against, but in practise there's only likely to be one (supported) > FreeBSD user-threading library which interfaces to the kernel support. But the _same_ threading library can provide different scheduling models (SCHED_RR and SCHED_FIFO). That's kind of what I was after. 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?Pine.SUN.3.91.991102162727.26632A-100000>