Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 18:14:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG, Jason Evans <jasone@canonware.com>, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> Subject: Re: RFC: Kernel thread system nomenclature. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0107061806540.33400-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.010706161600.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, John Baldwin wrote: > > > > my favourites are: > > proc, subproc, lwcpu, lwp > > > > lwps are parcelled out to lwcpus to run when the appropriate subproc is > > scheduled. > > One other note. #2 is conceptually a related group of #4's, so I think it's > name should reflect that. (It's view as a group of #4's is more important than > as being a part of #1.) So, if you go with lwp (yuck) for #4, #2 should be > lwpgrp or some such. I still think lwp's overloaded nomenclature is a reason > to stay away from it. *shrug* As peter pointe out, NetBSD use lwp as a combination of #3 and #4 (in fact they are mostly #4.. as they include a kernel stack I think) (hmm need to look at their definitions again).... I think that an lwp can block. That makes it #4 definitly. unless we call the 'threads' ? that would give: #1 proc #2 threadclass #3 ??? (thread carrier (spindle? :-)) or thread-processor #4 thread the 'thread' is a path through code combined with a context. it proceeds along this path when loaded into a thread-processor or an "execution-slot" or whatever we want to call #3. (i.e. it's scheduled). To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" 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.4.21.0107061806540.33400-100000>