Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 09:54:03 +1000 (EST) From: John Birrell <jb@cimlogic.com.au> To: dyson@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: threads performance Message-ID: <199804252354.JAA09319@cimlogic.com.au> In-Reply-To: <199804252306.SAA00505@dyson.iquest.net> from "John S. Dyson" at "Apr 25, 98 06:06:58 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John S. Dyson wrote: > > Why this hurts so much be comparison to other platforms (which > > supposedly also do this) is another question entirely. > > > We need to use a deferred mechanism, a lot like our interrupt > code. The issue of blocking syscalls makes this "not worth doing". It would only be possible for -current, anyway. I'd prefer that we concentrate on the kernel thread interface so that the blocking syscall issue goes away. And with it goes the need to block signals. -- John Birrell - jb@cimlogic.com.au; jb@freebsd.org http://www.cimlogic.com.au/ CIMlogic Pty Ltd, GPO Box 117A, Melbourne Vic 3001, Australia +61 418 353 137 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199804252354.JAA09319>