From owner-freebsd-arch Sun Nov 28 16:30:50 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC7DB1506A for ; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 16:30:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA29919 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:30:47 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id BAA60502 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:30:47 +0100 (MET) Received: from alpo.whistle.com (alpo.whistle.com [207.76.204.38]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E25E1506A for ; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 16:30:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from julian@whistle.com) Received: from current1.whiste.com (current1.whistle.com [207.76.205.22]) by alpo.whistle.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA28107; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 16:30:35 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 16:30:35 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer To: peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threads stuff In-Reply-To: <99Nov29.111117est.40352@border.alcanet.com.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I think there is confusion here.. The way Dan and I have been discussing it (you need to go back and read the old mail) the process creates several thread classes. Thread classes can be bound to a CPU and can have different system priorities. They are implemted in FreeBSD by rfork()ing a new process (called a subprocess. The scheduler then assigns threads to the subprocess. Effectively assigning them to a class. if the class is "all threads herein run on CPU1" tehn you get what you want.. Dan left of the "sub". Julian On Mon, 29 Nov 1999, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On 1999-Nov-29 05:54:55 +1100, Daniel M. Eischen wrote: > >Do we really want to be able to bind a _thread_ to a CPU? > > Yes. > > > Wouldn't it be sufficient to be able to bind a process to a CPU? > > Not really. If a process has multiple threads, it makes sense to be > able to specify CPU affinity for each thread, since each thread can > be scheduled independently. > > If you've got a multi-threaded process, I'm not sure why you'd want to > bind it as a whole to a single CPU. This implies that only one thread > can ever execute at once - which removes one major use for threads. > > Peter > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message