Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 00:44:28 -0800 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: leafy <leafy@leafy.idv.tw> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: gcc -kthread Message-ID: <20030120084428.GA92282@rot13.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20030120082641.GA31370@leafy.idv.tw> References: <000b01c2bfc0$8ed86e90$e602a8c0@shara.net> <20030119144233.GA1056@graf.pompo.net> <007901c2bfd0$3ee5de30$e602a8c0@shara.net> <20030119230901.GA89120@rot13.obsecurity.org> <002601c2c029$a0063a30$e602a8c0@shara.net> <20030120082339.GC92001@rot13.obsecurity.org> <20030120082641.GA31370@leafy.idv.tw>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --]
On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 04:26:41PM +0800, leafy wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 12:23:39AM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > > (just curious: has it ever worked, and why was it removed?)
> >
> > No. An improved (relative to other OSes) kernel threading system is
> > being developed in the 5.0 branch ("KSE").
> >
> > Kris
>
> Since you brought this up(*grin*), how different is KSE to NetBSD's
> new thread activation scheme? The FreeBSD KSE page does not say much
> about the implementation details.
I believe the NetBSD scheme is a faithful implementation of the
original Scheduler Activation paper. KSE is a bit different, though
broadly similar (based on SA)..there is a design paper floating around
somewhere, which is a bit out of date.
Kris
[-- Attachment #2 --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQE+K7bsWry0BWjoQKURApTWAKDt8gBxeLZF0m2PZso4djGPheiR7wCePhxn
7SJ5btYEt2MqzxAclBTpgWQ=
=3+B0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030120084428.GA92282>