Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 11:13:48 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Jonas Bulow <jonas.bulow@servicefactory.se> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: R. Stevens select() Collisions Scenario Message-ID: <20000811111348.Z4854@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <39943B24.90B7AB04@servicefactory.se>; from jonas.bulow@servicefactory.se on Fri, Aug 11, 2000 at 07:43:00PM %2B0200 References: <39934E64.A5BEE8EE@earthlink.net> <20000810180838.V4854@fw.wintelcom.net> <39943B24.90B7AB04@servicefactory.se>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Jonas Bulow <jonas.bulow@servicefactory.se> [000811 10:45] wrote: > Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > Yes. :) When FreeBSD gets scheduler activations you'll be able to change > > to a single threaded process that will have excellent performance, the > > scheduler activations are just around the corner. > > Can you explain what scheduler activations are? Please CC. schedulder activations are like 'LWP on-demand' a really simplified explanation would be shared address space fork that only happens when you block in certain parts of the kernel, like during disk/io. the problem with normal LWP is that if you're going to do any sort of disk IO you really want an LWP _per_ disk bound thread otherwise you risk blocking on disk IO inside the kernel, scheduler activations make sure you almost never block as well as making it unnecessary to 'pre-allocate' LWP contexts to avoid such problems. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000811111348.Z4854>