Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 16:33:32 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> To: eischen@vigrid.com, james@westongold.com, peter@netplex.com.au Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG, jb@cimlogic.com.au, lists@tar.com Subject: RE: Kernel threading (was Re: Thread Scheduler bug) Message-ID: <199811032133.QAA22300@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > From: Peter Wemm [mailto:peter@netplex.com.au] > > Sent: Sunday, November 01, 1998 3:30 PM > > ... > > - a "process" (struct proc) would have one or more threads, > > all using the > > same address space, pid, signals, etc. > > ... > > I'd like to suggest that threads (at least kernel threads) > should share an address space EXCEPT for a page (or maybe > more than one) that will have a common address in each thread. What about same process threads executing on multiple processors? common_address[MAX_CPUS] ? > This is how OS/2 (at least) handles thread specific data, > and so far as I can tell it is potentially much cleaner > for TSD, including errno. > > > Any user-level multiplexing would need to save/restore this > data on task switch of course and a kernel-assist that changes > the memory map might be faster (or might not, dunno). > > Can I ask (plead, really) for any effort in this area to > consider the support for inter-process synchronisation as well > as intra-process? Dan Eischen eischen@vigrid.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199811032133.QAA22300>