Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 15:45:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Threads topics. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0107301531110.30207-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010730160606.18329A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > > Thread 2 comes ready. It also was last run on KSE-1 so it is hung off > > the already running KSE-1. However since the number of runnable threads > > is greater than the number of runnable KSEs, but less than the > > number of KSEs created (2) we get another KSE at random (KSE-2) > > and place it on the run queue. > > From the UTS perspective, it may be easier to deal with unblocking > of threads if notifications were only on the KSE in which the thread > was running. For concurrency levels > 1 (more than 1 KSE in the > KSE Group), the UTS may have 2 sets of queues -- one for each > concurrency level. > > If KSEs may get notifications for threads running in other KSEs, > it means that there will have to be some inter-KSE locking of > blocked and running thread queues. And each KSE has it's own > mailbox, so it might force KSEs to fiddle with mailboxes they > don't own. no it would never have to fiddle with a mailbox that it didn't own, but it might find a thread on its "completed" list that it should put on the other run queue. If I don't do that then there will be times when I could run a thread but instead will sit idle. It is of course easy to do.. (comment out some code :-) In the first version it will always come back on the same KSE because there is a 1:1 relationship between threads and KSEs. I'm rewriting this stuff at the moment. I 'll make sure it can be done either way (allow or not allow a thread to change KSEs while in the kernel.) So, did the rest of what I wrote make sense? the important bit is writing the code to put things on the run queues in the new scheme that degenerates to exactly the current operation in a 1:1 situation. > > I'm not saying we can't do it, just that we may want to postpone > that for later. > > -- > Dan Eischen > 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.4.21.0107301531110.30207-100000>