From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Dec 1 9:21:42 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FED315B2B for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 09:21:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA28894 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 18:21:36 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id SAA77700 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 18:21:35 +0100 (MET) Received: from plunger.gdeb.com (plunger.gdeb.com [153.11.11.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E64D514C93 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 09:18:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com) Received: from orion.caen.gdeb.com ([153.11.109.11]) by plunger.gdeb.com with ESMTP id MAA03160 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 12:10:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from vigrid.com (clcrtr [153.11.109.129]) by orion.caen.gdeb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA95129 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 12:12:40 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com) Message-ID: <38455708.F1DDF9DE@vigrid.com> Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 12:12:40 -0500 From: "Daniel M. Eischen" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 3.2-STABLE i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: [Fwd: Threads stuff] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG -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