Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:06:57 -0800 (PST) From: Kris Kennaway <kris@hub.freebsd.org> To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threads models and FreeBSD. (Next Step) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9911021405060.73778-100000@hub.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.991102162727.26632A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 2 Nov 1999, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > > How about [from the "scheduler activations" paper] Flexibility? > > > > I assume by this you mean "the ability to replace the user-level code with > > another model". In theory, that's a good goal, and it's one we shouldn't > > work against, but in practise there's only likely to be one (supported) > > FreeBSD user-threading library which interfaces to the kernel support. > > But the _same_ threading library can provide different scheduling models > (SCHED_RR and SCHED_FIFO). That's kind of what I was after. Okay, sure, if that's what gets coded. I kind of figured we'd be lucky to get one model given the complexity of the task, and we'd be stuck with it evermore :-) 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.4.10.9911021405060.73778-100000>