From owner-freebsd-current Thu Oct 29 08:49:36 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA15073 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 08:49:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from pcnet1.pcnet.com (pcnet1.pcnet.com [204.213.232.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA15064 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 08:49:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com) Received: (from eischen@localhost) by pcnet1.pcnet.com (8.8.7/PCNet) id LAA16122; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 11:49:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 11:49:27 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen Message-Id: <199810291649.LAA16122@pcnet1.pcnet.com> To: current@FreeBSD.ORG, eischen@vigrid.com, info@highwind.com, lists@tar.com Subject: Re: Thread Scheduler bug Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > 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. :) Yeah, but you will still want to be able to have userland threads mixed with kernel threads. Dan Eischen eischen@vigrid.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message