Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 03:19:56 +0800 From: Chia-liang Kao <clkao@CirX.ORG> To: Jason Evans <jasone@canonware.com> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: kernel thread support Message-ID: <20000616031956.A2551@genius.cirx.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, Alright, people brought up discussion about kernel thread once or more every year since '97 but not this year, so I'd like to bring it up again. I spent some time do some kernel hacking and go through the discussion last winter and the SA paper these days. (I didn't find the discussion till recent because in I thought -arch had been quiet for years) And, half year had it been silent after the active discussion. o Is the model for the scenario described in http://www.freebsd.org/~julian/threads/ the final design decision? (then I think it shall be well documented.) o shouldn't KSE to be renamed to something else? It is somewhat confusing, I thought KSEs meant the sub-processes(Q) at a glance. (I think the terms should be frozen ASAP to ease understanding for new developers on this) o What's the current status of implementation (or implementation design)? I suppose the works to be done are: 1) libc threadsafication 2) kernel runqueue runs subproc (orig proc becomes subproc and the grouping concept goes to the new proc) 3) (so called) kse sleep queue(and some modification in syscall stuff?) 4) userland lib support o any timeline on this? I would really like to see the development to be active(perhaps in a branch?) ps. Some time-saving references for late comers to catch up: o Terry's summary about thread programming, and when we really need threads: <199911041804.LAA18253@usr06.primenet.com> o The design goal: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9910311908080.8816-100000@home.elischer.org> o is there anything good to summarize the model we'll be using? o links: http://www.freebsd.org/~julian/threads/ Please let me know if anything above is wrong, I just swallowed -arch these days. Cheers, CLK On Wed, May 31, 2000 at 08:20:26PM -0700, Jason Evans wrote: > There was a lengthy discussion last winter on -arch about improving FreeBSD's > threads support, and the result of the discussion is that we're pursuing > scheduler activations (SAs) rather than LWPs. I'm currently working out > the design on paper, and hope to be coding it soon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000616031956.A2551>