Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 13:40:56 -0800 (PST) From: Kris Kennaway <kris@hub.freebsd.org> To: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> Cc: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>, julian@whistle.com, nate@mt.sri.com, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Solaris terminology Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9911021335290.73778-100000@hub.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <381D8046.812922F6@newsguy.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: > Not sure how are things these days there, but maybe they refer to > lwp as their previous implementation (userland threads) and threads > as their present implementation (kernel threads)? The Solaris terminology seems to be: User threads are scheduled over lightweight processes. Lightweight processors run in the kernel using execution contexts of Kernel Threads. Each LWP gets 1 and only 1 kernel thread, but you can bind N user threads to M LWPs, and M LWPs to P processors. Kernel Threads can also exist without a LWP, i.e. for purely in-kernel tasks like interrupt handling and periodic activities. LWP and KT are therefore more or less interchangable when you're talking about what happens to the process, and just depend on which side of the kernel you're in. Kris ---- Cthulhu for President! For when you're tired of choosing the _lesser_ of two evils.. 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?Pine.BSF.4.10.9911021335290.73778-100000>