Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 17:42:44 -0500 From: "Daniel M. Eischen" <eischen@vigrid.com> To: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> Cc: "Richard Seaman, Jr." <dick@tar.com>, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threads stuff Message-ID: <3845A464.6CA5B28A@vigrid.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9911282113490.544-100000@current1.whistle.com> <384270AE.D0250340@vigrid.com> <38440BAB.E547CA61@vigrid.com> <19991130122423.N29767@tar.com> <38459FEF.B04F4617@softweyr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Wes Peters wrote: > > "Richard Seaman, Jr." wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 30, 1999 at 12:38:51PM -0500, Daniel M. Eischen wrote: > > > > > I think we can perform thread switches totally in > > > userland without any assistance from the kernel. > > > > This would be a big performance plus. > > Not if you want those threads to run on multiple processors in an SMP box. Each cooperating subprocess has an upcall context and can perform switches for threads within the subprocess. So if you have multiple subprocesses and multiple CPUs, then you can have simultaneous thread switches occuring on each CPU. That's for async call-gates/SAs. Under Matts proposal, you don't need multiple subprocesses (rforks) in order to run simultaneously on multiple CPUs. 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?3845A464.6CA5B28A>