Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 00:06:16 -0600 (MDT) From: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> To: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> Cc: Jonas Bulow <jonas.bulow@servicefactory.se>, Ronald G Minnich <rminnich@lanl.gov>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IPC, shared memory, syncronization Message-ID: <200008130606.AAA26841@nomad.yogotech.com> In-Reply-To: <39962001.35378CFE@softweyr.com> References: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0008112101590.6759-100000@mini.acl.lanl.gov> <39952437.EFCAA381@servicefactory.se> <39962001.35378CFE@softweyr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > I don't know about the "bsd" or whatever way. If you're doing real > > > parallel programming and want real performance, you'll use a test-and-set > > > like function that uses the low-level machine instructions for same. > > > > That is exacly what I'm looking for! I found it to be overkill to > > involve the kernel just because I wanted to have a context switch during > > the "test-and-set". > > Precisely how do you expect to "have a context switch" without "involving > the kernel"? If your threads are implemented wholly in userland, you can easily do a context switch w/out involving the kernel. Our current pthreads library does this now, and the JDK's internal (green) threads implementation does it as well. Nate 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?200008130606.AAA26841>