Date: Sat, 07 Mar 1998 21:35:03 -0800 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: John Birrell <jb@cimlogic.com.au> Cc: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams), mike@smith.net.au, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-lib@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc_r/uthread pthread_private.h uthread_yield.c Message-ID: <199803080535.VAA08550@dingo.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 08 Mar 1998 16:29:39 %2B1100." <199803080529.QAA10869@cimlogic.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Nate Williams wrote: > > > that it will all just come out in the wash. Kernel threads aren't > > > light weight, though. > > > > If kernel threads aren't light-weight, then what differentiates them > > from processes? > > Shared address space. The threads in user-space each have their > own stack (once you allocate it when you know you've go a new thread - > the kernel doesn't do this for you). All scheduling _currently_ uses > the process scheduler, so each thread is actually scheduled as though > it is a process, rather than fighting other threads in the same > process for the process's time allocation. So what differentiates these "heavyweight" threads from "lightweight" threads? -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199803080535.VAA08550>