From owner-freebsd-arch Wed May 31 23:36:31 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from magnesium.net (toxic.magnesium.net [207.154.84.15]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6B8E337BA0E for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 23:36:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jasone@magnesium.net) Received: (qmail 17507 invoked by uid 1142); 1 Jun 2000 06:36:26 -0000 Date: 31 May 2000 23:36:26 -0700 Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 20:20:26 -0700 From: Jason Evans To: "Andrew M. Miklic" Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: LWP Support Message-ID: <20000531202026.A16569@blitz.canonware.com> References: <3935CD62.8FA8825E@ibm.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <3935CD62.8FA8825E@ibm.net>; from miklic@ibm.net on Wed, May 31, 2000 at 08:41:38PM -0600 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, May 31, 2000 at 08:41:38PM -0600, Andrew M. Miklic wrote: > I am currently working on OSF1 support for FreeBSD/Alpha, and I > found that FreeBSD apparently has no support for any type of LWP > mechanism--not only would LWPs make my OSF1 emulation work much easier, > but it would also benefit anyone trying to create effective and > efficient multi-threaded programs... > > Does anyone know if there is any work being done on this front, or > would anyone be interested in helping me through some of the FreeBSD > internals to start my own? There was a lengthy discussion last winter on -arch about improving FreeBSD's threads support, and the result of the discussion is that we're pursuing scheduler activations (SAs) rather than LWPs. I'm currently working out the design on paper, and hope to be coding it soon. It is probably possible to create a shim on top of SAs that looks like LWPs, but this isn't something I've given much thought to. One thing at a time. =) Jason To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message