From owner-freebsd-current Fri Jul 6 16:16: 9 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mail11.speakeasy.net (mail11.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.211]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 072A037B405 for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 16:16:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 27888 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2001 23:16:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop.baldwin.cx) ([64.81.54.73]) (envelope-sender ) by mail11.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 6 Jul 2001 23:16:04 -0000 Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.4.0 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3B455C0C.C5E8197C@elischer.org> Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 16:16:00 -0700 (PDT) From: John Baldwin To: Julian Elischer Subject: Re: RFC: Kernel thread system nomenclature. Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG, Jason Evans , Peter Wemm Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 06-Jul-01 Julian Elischer wrote: > Peter Wemm wrote: >> >> Jason Evans wrote: >> > On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 02:16:16PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > [...] >> > I think there is a clear argument for #1 to be "struct proc". I don't >> > much >> > care what #2, #3, and #4 are called. >> > >> > I am of the rather strong opinion that calling #3/#4 "struct proc" is a >> > bad >> > idea in the long run. Yes, it would reduce the diffs, but it would be >> > terribly confusing to those who weren't versed with the development >> > history >> > of KSEs. >> >> Also keep in mind that netbsd use 'struct lwp *' for #3/#4 (SA has these >> combined into one entity). If there is an easy way to not be gratuitously >> different I think it would be worth it. > > Also comments by several others.. > > Ok so here's how it looks to me now: (still not final) > >#1 struct proc (decided) >#2 struct schedgrp ,lpwg (lwp-group), prigrp (priority-group) > subproc (subprocess) >#3 struct upctx (upcall-context), virtcpu, thrdslot (thread slot) >#4 struct lwp (decided) > > usually the 'lwp' will be passed around so diffs to NetBSD will be > minimalised. > > > my favourites are: > proc, subproc, lwcpu, lwp > > lwps are parcelled out to lwcpus to run when the appropriate subproc is > scheduled. One other note. #2 is conceptually a related group of #4's, so I think it's name should reflect that. (It's view as a group of #4's is more important than as being a part of #1.) So, if you go with lwp (yuck) for #4, #2 should be lwpgrp or some such. I still think lwp's overloaded nomenclature is a reason to stay away from it. *shrug* -- John Baldwin -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message