Date: Thu, 29 Oct 98 10:25:02 -0500 From: "Richard Seaman, Jr." <lists@tar.com> To: "current@FreeBSD.ORG" <current@FreeBSD.ORG>, "eischen@vigrid.com" <eischen@vigrid.com>, "info@highwind.com" <info@highwind.com> Subject: Re: Thread Scheduler bug Message-ID: <199810291625.KAA14241@ns.tar.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 29 Oct 1998 11:10:06 -0500 (EST), Daniel Eischen wrote: >Yeah, I just figured this out (should pay closer attention to >the man pages). Seems like the profiling timer would be closer >to what we'd want (not to say the threads library should use >the profiling timer). A quick hack to replace occurrences of >SIGVTALRM with SIGPROF in the threads library seems to make >the test program work more correctly. > >Perhaps SIGALRM should be used instead of SIGVTALRM? Of course, it we had kernel threads, the pthreads code would be a *lot* simpler and maybe less prone to bugs, the kernel would do the preemption for us, and context switches would be much faster than the current user thread implementation. :) I've been poking around in the code, and I'd guess that a uniprocessor kernel threads implementation wouldn't involve all that much work. However, I understand there's are fair amount of kernel work that needs to be done for SMP kernel threads. 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?199810291625.KAA14241>