Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 00:48:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> To: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG>, current@FreeBSD.ORG, Jason Evans <jasone@canonware.com> Subject: Re: RFC: Kernel thread system nomenclature. Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010707002247.25592A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <20010707024342.35F64380F@overcee.netplex.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Peter Wemm wrote: > Julian Elischer wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > > > > ->proc-> > > > ->thrgrp-> > > > ->thr-> > > > ->thrctx-> > > > > > interesting, though the thrctx maps most closely to a userland thread. > > there may be many threads running on each #3. > > IMHO, I like this less than kse/kseg/ksec/proc. Remember.. these are > not thread specific.. they can be used to implement aio etc as well. > > The KSE paper's definitions of things are pretty clear. If we're not > going to use something netbsd compatable, then IMHO we should stick to > the design paper. That was my first thought also ;-) > The only variation that I think I'd find appealing would be to try > and make the kseg/ksec difference stand out more. ksegrp/ksectx is less > likely to be confused at a casual glance. > > I'm not really sure that we can use the 'struct lwp' name in a compatable > way with NetBSD. It would be even worse if we both had 'struct lwp' > but ours was different to theirs. NetBSD doesn't (yet) have an idea of a KSE group. We could just replace our usage of KSE with LWP: proc-> lwpgrp-> lwp-> lwpctx-> If NetBSD ever folded in our KSE group support, wouldn't that be the most compatible? > ... etc... > > Look for these in particular: > Index: sys/sys/lwp.h > Index: sys/sys/proc.h > Index: sys/sys/sa.h > Index: sys/sys/savar.h > > If we dont do similar structure member naming, then there is no point > using the same structure names as that will just increase the confusion. > > NetBSD's structure is different too.. They have implelemted both > Solaris-style LWP's and SA's over the top of the same low level entity. I like that they use a ucontext_t for storing the context also. Julian, can we please do the same? We'll probably also need to use a spare slot in ucontext/mcontext for a flags word (floating point register validity?). -- Dan Eischen To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SUN.3.91.1010707002247.25592A-100000>