Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 20:13:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG>, current@FreeBSD.ORG, Jason Evans <jasone@canonware.com>, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> Subject: Re: RFC: Kernel thread system nomenclature. Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010706200319.21621C-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0107061806540.33400-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Julian Elischer wrote: > On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, John Baldwin wrote: > > 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). I think #3 should be thread and #4 should be thread context (and #2 should be thread [scheduling] group). ->thrgrp-> ->thr-> ->thrctx-> -- Dan Eischen 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.SUN.3.91.1010706200319.21621C-100000>