Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 17:51:31 -0400 From: Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> To: Lord Raiden <me@raiden.net> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Questions about processes Message-ID: <426EB7E3.5040608@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20050426174605.00aca310@192.168.0.25> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20050425231442.00a408b0@192.168.0.25> <5.2.0.9.2.20050425231442.00a408b0@192.168.0.25> <5.2.0.9.2.20050426174605.00aca310@192.168.0.25>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Lord Raiden wrote: >> These are kernel threads. 5.x is more modular than 4.x and a lot >> of functionality has been moved to internal threads (for the sake >> of SMP). There's really nothing wrong with this; esp. since the >> number of threads is still pretty small :) >> >> The kernel may create more such threads if it needs them; like e.g. >> when using GBDE or so. > > AH! So that explains those. Cool. Good info to know. ^_^ Is > there a benefit to these threads being modular if I might ask? I'm sure > there is, but I'm just curious what they might be. Sure. These threads can be scheduled to run on any processor in a SMP system, and can run in parallel, whereas the older 4.x architecture had one giant lock over almost everything (called "Giant" :-), meaning only one kernel thread could run at a time, using only one CPU. -- -Chuck
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?426EB7E3.5040608>