Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 11:09:55 +0900 From: "George V. Neville-Neil" <gnn@neville-neil.com> To: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> Cc: Stephan Uphoff <ups@tree.com> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern sched_ule.c Message-ID: <m28y81ljf0.wl@minion.local.neville-neil.com> In-Reply-To: <20041213165627.E60504@mail.chesapeake.net> References: <200412131309.iBDD9XXi045169@repoman.freebsd.org> <20041213082407.U9536@mail.chesapeake.net> <41BDDD5E.9060308@elischer.org> <41BDE477.5050103@freebsd.org> <41BDEAD1.9060308@elischer.org> <20041213152556.R60504@mail.chesapeake.net> <41BE0EB3.8010003@elischer.org> <20041213165627.E60504@mail.chesapeake.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:13:36 -0500 (EST), Jeff Roberson wrote: > If you really have to have the flexibility to do some other method of > concurrency, I suggest we make a table of operations for a process to call > to schedule a thread. That would mean calling setrunqueue(), > choosethread(), adjustrunqueue(), and maybe_preempt() through indirect > pointers. This would mean we could use much simpler versions of these > functions for single threaded programs as well, which would likely reduce > cpu overhead. > As a quick aside, I'd love to see something like this. It could make doing a real time FreeBSD much easier. Later, George
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m28y81ljf0.wl>