Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 12:12:40 -0500 From: "Daniel M. Eischen" <eischen@vigrid.com> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: [Fwd: Threads stuff] Message-ID: <38455708.F1DDF9DE@vigrid.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-arch should have been included "Daniel M. Eischen" wrote: > > Matthew Dillon wrote: > > > > I think implementing a threading mechanism in the kernel is going to be > > a whole lot easier then implementing async call gates. In fact, the > > whole KSE mechanism is going to be easier to implement if they are > > integrated into a native kernel-based threading mechanism. > > Under your proposal, is there a 1:1 correspondence of user (POSIX) > threads to kernel threads, or does the UTS simply see kernel threads > (instead of rfork'd processes) as the entity onto which user threads > are scheduled? > > In earlier email you had stated that kernel threads would be limited > to the resources of the governing process. One of our goals is to > be able to create thread groups that can have their own slice of > CPU, scheduling class and priority. How does this work under your > proposal? > > One of the things that I like about SA is that locking can be done > in userland because the UTS is notified when preemptions occur. Your > method doesn't include upcalls, so how would locking be done? > > 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?38455708.F1DDF9DE>