From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sat Jul 29 15:53:45 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) id PAA02929
          for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jul 1995 15:53:45 -0700
Received: from netcom20.netcom.com (netcom20.netcom.com [192.100.81.133])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id PAA02922
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Sat, 29 Jul 1995 15:53:44 -0700
Received: from localhost by netcom20.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom)
	id PAA23854; Sat, 29 Jul 1995 15:51:56 -0700
Message-Id: <199507292251.PAA23854@netcom20.netcom.com>
To: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert)
cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: pthreads 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 29 Jul 95 16:25:17 MDT."
             <9507292225.AA08444@cs.weber.edu> 
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 95 15:51:55 -0700
From: Bakul Shah <bakul@netcom.com>
Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> > While we're on the topic of threads, is there any work on getting
> > kernel level threads into bsd?

> I thibk that this is a natural consequence of allowing kernel reentrancy
> in the SMP port... the kernel becomes internally preemption-safe.

I think Marty Leisner is talking about multiple threads of
control in a single address space.  If so, this can be
handled without kernel preemption.  AFAIK kernel preemption
is really only required to handle realtime processes.

BTW, nice description of `priority inversion' w.r.t.
prioritized realtime processes on MP systems (in your other
message about Scheduling Algorithms).