From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri May 26 13:20:20 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mimer.webgiro.com (mimer.webgiro.com [212.209.29.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF67C37B732; Fri, 26 May 2000 13:20:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from abial@webgiro.com) Received: by mimer.webgiro.com (Postfix, from userid 66) id 2BC062DC0B; Fri, 26 May 2000 22:26:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mx.webgiro.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 150BA7817; Fri, 26 May 2000 22:18:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.webgiro.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F9B910E17; Fri, 26 May 2000 22:18:55 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 22:18:53 +0200 (CEST) From: Andrzej Bialecki To: "Koster, K.J." Cc: java@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Kernel threads (RE: alphaworks 1.3 linux port) In-Reply-To: <59063B5B4D98D311BC0D0001FA7E4522026D7590@l04.research.kpn.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG (I CC:'d to -hackers, perhaps someone can enlighten us wrt. the availability of kernel threads..) On Fri, 26 May 2000, Koster, K.J. wrote: > > > > > Has anyone had a look at this? Reports are that it's a big > > > improvement over the BDown stuff. Anyone had a play yet? > > > 1.3 is a big improvement over 1.2.2 performancewise, at least on Windows. > > > > > it works great under linux (redhat 6.1) but i wasn't able to > > get it to run under linux emulation of freebsd 4.0. if anyone > > figures it out, i'd love to hear how they did it. > > > Could you elaborate on your attempts to get it running? Any error messages > or irregular behaviour? What version of the linux port were you using? As I wrote about two weeks ago, I tried to get it running on relatively up-to-date 5.0-CURRENT. Alphaworks JVM uses native threads on Linux, which (as far as I understand) are impossible to have right now, either under Linux emulation or otherwise. The error message was: sigaltstack: Cannot allocate memory, which after looking up in the manpage led me to believe that perhaps Linux doesn't add MINSIGSTKSZ by default to the stack size. Added it to linuxulator in appropriate places (in linux_signal.c:linux_sigaltstack()), and it stopped complaining, but started eating 100% CPU. At which point I gave up... Obviously, the matter is more complicated than that - that is, it was shooting in the dark. I know I don't have kernel threads, I was just curious where it would bomb out.. :-) Andrzej Bialecki // WebGiro AB, Sweden (http://www.webgiro.com) // ------------------------------------------------------------------- // ------ FreeBSD: The Power to Serve. http://www.freebsd.org -------- // --- Small & Embedded FreeBSD: http://www.freebsd.org/~picobsd/ ---- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message