Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 14:38:52 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threads models and FreeBSD. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9910311437490.8816-100000@home.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9910311355440.13532-100000@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
ok, but can he do it after we have decided what we are trying to achieve? On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > So what are the definitions that a thread enabled environment should > > possess? This not a definative list, and before we go on to solve the > > worlds threading problems, I'd like everyone to add their thoughts to this > > list so that we can agree about what problems we are trying to solve. > > I'd appreciate it if Terry (or someone else) could clarify exactly the > differences between the "scheduler activations" model described in the > paper Daniel Eischen recently pointed out (which I thought was very well > written): > > http://www.freebsd.org/~deischen/p95-anderson.pdf > > and the model he seems to prefer (async call gates). I've been rereading > some of the old discussions about this, and they seem fairly similar. > > I'm not likely to be able to bring much to the discussion, but I'd > appreciate the extra hint so I can understand it better :-) > > Kris > > ---- > "Lisa, if you don't like your job, you don't strike - you just go in every > day and do it real half-assed. It's the American Way." > -- Homer Simpson > > 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.4.05.9910311437490.8816-100000>