Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 16:30:32 -0600 From: "Richard Seaman, Jr." <dick@tar.com> To: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> Cc: "Richard Seaman, Jr." <dick@tar.com>, "Daniel M. Eischen" <eischen@vigrid.com>, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threads stuff Message-ID: <19991201163032.G29767@tar.com> In-Reply-To: <38459FEF.B04F4617@softweyr.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9911282113490.544-100000@current1.whistle.com> <384270AE.D0250340@vigrid.com> <38440BAB.E547CA61@vigrid.com> <19991130122423.N29767@tar.com> <38459FEF.B04F4617@softweyr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 03:23:43PM -0700, Wes Peters wrote: > "Richard Seaman, Jr." wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 30, 1999 at 12:38:51PM -0500, Daniel M. Eischen wrote: > > > > > I think we can perform thread switches totally in > > > userland without any assistance from the kernel. > > > > This would be a big performance plus. > > Not if you want those threads to run on multiple processors in an SMP box. I doubt you can eliminate all kernel calls for context switches when you have multiple processors, or even when you want multiple scheduler classes on UP. But, if you're only rescheduling a thread on the same KSE in response to a userland block or other event, then I can see this as possible, and as a win. -- Richard Seaman, Jr. email: dick@tar.com 5182 N. Maple Lane phone: 262-367-5450 Chenequa WI 53058 fax: 262-367-5852 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?19991201163032.G29767>