Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 17:36:43 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com> To: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: libthr and 1:1 threading. Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10304021734270.11553-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <20030402172900.I64602-100000@mail.chesapeake.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Jeff Roberson wrote: > On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Juli Mallett wrote: > > > > > * De: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> [ Data: 2003-04-02 ] > > > [ Subjecte: Re: libthr and 1:1 threading. ] > > > > On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > > > Also, any ETA on the per process signal mask handing bug in > > > > > libthr? Might not be safe to convert everything up front, in > > > > > a rush of eager enthusiasm... > > > > > > > > Which bug is that? I'm not aware of it. > > > > > > I think Terry is referring to the Uncertainty & Doubt as if it were > > > a bug over the lack of a process sigmask (moved into the threads), > > > as raised by the M:N group. > > > > I think this IS a problem. We need a per-process mask. > > to block signals that no thread is interested in. > > Since M:N threads do not have a kernel thread for each userland thread, > > there is nowhere to store this info any more. > > > > Then set the mask to be the same on all threads in the process. The mask > is set in swapcontext though so it seems reasonable to me that it is > atomically updated when you schedule a new user thread on a kse. Jeff, are you _listening_ to us? We've said multiple times that the UTS does not enter the kernel when performing thread switches. The UTS does NOT use setcontext(), getcontext(), or swapcontext(). -- Dan Eischen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.10.10304021734270.11553-100000>