From owner-p4-projects  Fri May  3 11:40:32 2002
Delivered-To: p4-projects@freebsd.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 32767)
	id A695337B416; Fri,  3 May 2002 11:40:16 -0700 (PDT)
Delivered-To: perforce@freebsd.org
Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53.attbi.com [204.127.198.39])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id D592A37B41C; Fri,  3 May 2002 11:40:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from InterJet.elischer.org ([12.232.206.8])
          by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com
          (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP
          id <20020503184013.KNAB5896.rwcrmhc53.attbi.com@InterJet.elischer.org>;
          Fri, 3 May 2002 18:40:13 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1])
	by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA83702;
	Fri, 3 May 2002 11:23:14 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 11:23:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>
Cc: Jonathan Mini <mini@FreeBSD.org>,
	Jonathan Mini <mini@FreeBSD.org>,
	Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 10740 for review
In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20020503133003.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0205031121550.83245-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-p4-projects@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <p4-projects.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20p4-projects>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20p4-projects>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

That's certainly an option, though it would probably allocate more threads
than needed.


On Fri, 3 May 2002, John Baldwin wrote:

> 
> On 03-May-2002 Julian Elischer wrote:
> > to some extent I agree with you but realise that all tehuma stuff has
> > occured since young Edith dorothy was born.. :-)
> > (i.e the patches predate uma)
> 
> I realize that, I just think that the goal should be to eliminate the
> thread free-list in favor of letting uma do its job, but that to avoid
> any need to malloc in msleep, we instead let each KSE always have a
> spare "hot" thread for P_KSE processes and that when it uses the hot
> thread to do an upcall, the first act of the new thread will be to
> allocate a new hot spare.
> 
> Does that sound ok?
> 
> -- 
> 
> John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>  <><  http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
> "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!"  -  http://www.FreeBSD.org/
> 


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe p4-projects" in the body of the message