Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 14:46:14 -0800 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: "Richard Seaman, Jr." <lists@tar.com> Cc: "current@FreeBSD.ORG" <current@FreeBSD.ORG>, "eischen@vigrid.com" <eischen@vigrid.com>, "info@highwind.com" <info@highwind.com> Subject: Kernel threading (was Re: Thread Scheduler bug) Message-ID: <199810292246.OAA00372@dingo.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 29 Oct 1998 10:25:02 EST." <199810291625.KAA14241@ns.tar.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Thu, 29 Oct 1998 11:10:06 -0500 (EST), Daniel Eischen wrote: > Of course, it we had kernel threads, the pthreads code would be > a *lot* simpler and maybe less prone to bugs, the kernel would > do the preemption for us, and context switches would be much > faster than the current user thread implementation. :) > > I've been poking around in the code, and I'd guess that a > uniprocessor kernel threads implementation wouldn't involve > all that much work. However, I understand there's are fair > amount of kernel work that needs to be done for SMP kernel > threads. My suggestion to you: get started. Once you run into the SMP-related issues, you'll find that there are people that can help you. But if you wait for an SMP-kernel-thread-guru to materialise from nowhere, we're never going to get anywhere. -- \\ 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 freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199810292246.OAA00372>