From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Oct 9 15:33:35 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7607037B401 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 15:33:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B7EB43E3B for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 15:33:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from baka@elvis.mu.org) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1921) id 0EF94AE28D; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 15:33:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 15:33:34 -0700 From: Jon Mini To: Julian Elischer Cc: Igor Sysoev , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Scheduler framework. Message-ID: <20021009223333.GH30246@elvis.mu.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Julian Elischer [julian@elischer.org] wrote : > > Sorry, where did this second thread come from ? > > there is a thread_allocator that allocates threads on demand. > > Actually the process ahs a couple of spare threads "Up its sleave" > so it doesn't have to go to teh thread allocator every time.. I know Jeff asked in an earlier message "why do this? Isn't that why we have UMA?" The short answer is that we can't allocate from within the scheduler, because if a page is allocated from the VM to fill another slab, we run into locking problems. -- Jonathan Mini http://www.freebsd.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message