From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Aug 17 18:17:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA09229 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 17 Aug 1997 18:17:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from misery.sdf.com (misery.sdf.com [204.244.210.193]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA09211 for ; Sun, 17 Aug 1997 18:17:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tom by misery.sdf.com with smtp (Exim 1.62 #1) id 0x0GQH-0007PO-00; Sun, 17 Aug 1997 18:15:57 -0700 Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 18:15:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom Samplonius To: Charles Ebert cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The low priority items In-Reply-To: <33F78D7E.2610@theshop.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Sun, 17 Aug 1997, Charles Ebert wrote: > I'm a little slow. Did I read correctly that Threaded processes are > not supported? And the next line down from that mentioned something > of the same, however, can I assume it is to deal with multiprocessor > CPU boards as well? > > I can understand the rush to invent new drives and support three > channel scsi cards and all that. > > I was always told of UNIX's unique ability to run multiple processor > systems. I never imagined that this system would have a problem with > threading. I was hoping that the multiple processor issue would > have a higher priority than it does. You are making some interesting relationships between multiple threads and multiple CPUs. Do you know the difference between a process and a thread? User mode threads are supported. Kernel threads are not. > -- > Charlie > > Tom