Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 18:45:18 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> To: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> Cc: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threads models and FreeBSD. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9910311841320.8816-100000@home.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <199911010219.TAA13936@mt.sri.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, Nate Williams wrote: > > > 11.) Ability for the threads library to cancel/terminate a thread > > > blocked in the kernel. > > > > oooooh > > Oooh is right. This has the potential to deadlock the kernel if the > thread owns some sort of 'thread' resources. Justin and I were having a > discussion about this very thing earlier today, and I don't think I was > able to express myself well, so here it goes again. > > Basically, what happens if a particular thread owns a resource that > others are blocking on, and it's woken up 'prematurely'? If the thread > is aborted out of the kernel, the other threads (which might exist in > the kernel) may not be woken up (ever), thus causing zombie threads. I think what is being asked for is the thread version of the signal catching capabilities of the present tsleep(). The situation is no worse than it is at present. > 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.4.05.9910311841320.8816-100000>