From owner-freebsd-arch  Mon Aug 21 18:23:51 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE93037B42C
	for <freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 18:23:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from bright@localhost)
	by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e7M1NlN13147;
	Mon, 21 Aug 2000 18:23:47 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 18:23:46 -0700
From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>
To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>
Cc: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <n@nectar.com>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Is it time yet? [was Re: Weak symbols]
Message-ID: <20000821182346.L4854@fw.wintelcom.net>
References: <20000821175359.C26324@hamlet.nectar.com> <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000821200529.26995A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000821200529.26995A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>; from eischen@vigrid.com on Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 08:46:44PM -0400
Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

* Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> [000821 17:47] wrote:
> 
> When we want to (someday) build libpthread, it will have to be linkable
> with libc.  If we wanted the threads library to be able to catch internal
> calls to _read(), then _read() can't be the actual system call.  This
> should not be a problem with a "scheduler activations"-based threads
> library (we shouldn't have to wrap potentially blocking syscalls).  I'd
> like to make this assumption, but wouldn't rule out the possibility of
> having to override a few library/system calls from libpthread.

If libpthread could try to use a kqueue mechanism for sockets/pipes/fifo
and only fall back to scheduler activations for disk IO we'd be in
good shape.

-Alfred


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message