From owner-freebsd-current  Fri Jul  6 16:34: 2 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from InterJet.elischer.org (c421509-a.pinol1.sfba.home.com [24.7.86.9])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 13B2637B430; Fri,  6 Jul 2001 16:33:57 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from julian@elischer.org)
Received: from InterJet.elischer.org (InterJet.elischer.org [192.168.1.1])
	by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA34864;
	Fri, 6 Jul 2001 18:14:05 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 18:14:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>
Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG, Jason Evans <jasone@canonware.com>,
	Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: Kernel thread system nomenclature.
In-Reply-To: <XFMail.010706161600.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0107061806540.33400-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-current.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-current>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-current>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG



On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, John Baldwin wrote:

> > 
> > 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*


As peter pointe out, NetBSD use lwp as a combination of #3 and #4
(in fact they are mostly #4.. as they include a kernel stack I think)
(hmm need to look at their definitions again)....

I think that an lwp can block. That makes it #4 definitly.
unless we call the 'threads' ?

that would give:
#1 proc
#2 threadclass
#3 ??? (thread carrier (spindle? :-))  or thread-processor
#4 thread

the 'thread' is a path through code combined with a context.
it proceeds along this path  when loaded into a thread-processor
or an "execution-slot" or whatever we want to call #3.
(i.e. it's scheduled).



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