From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Jan 20 0:44:31 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C3ED37B401 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 00:44:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (adsl-64-169-106-179.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net [64.169.106.179]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3085643EB2 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 00:44:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from rot13.obsecurity.org (rot13.obsecurity.org [10.0.0.5]) by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D393666B60; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 00:44:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by rot13.obsecurity.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id ADB371622; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 00:44:28 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 00:44:28 -0800 From: Kris Kennaway To: leafy Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: gcc -kthread Message-ID: <20030120084428.GA92282@rot13.obsecurity.org> References: <000b01c2bfc0$8ed86e90$e602a8c0@shara.net> <20030119144233.GA1056@graf.pompo.net> <007901c2bfd0$3ee5de30$e602a8c0@shara.net> <20030119230901.GA89120@rot13.obsecurity.org> <002601c2c029$a0063a30$e602a8c0@shara.net> <20030120082339.GC92001@rot13.obsecurity.org> <20030120082641.GA31370@leafy.idv.tw> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="82I3+IH0IqGh5yIs" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030120082641.GA31370@leafy.idv.tw> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG --82I3+IH0IqGh5yIs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 04:26:41PM +0800, leafy wrote: > On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 12:23:39AM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > (just curious: has it ever worked, and why was it removed?) > >=20 > > No. An improved (relative to other OSes) kernel threading system is > > being developed in the 5.0 branch ("KSE"). > >=20 > > Kris > > Since you brought this up(*grin*), how different is KSE to NetBSD's > new thread activation scheme? The FreeBSD KSE page does not say much > about the implementation details. I believe the NetBSD scheme is a faithful implementation of the original Scheduler Activation paper. KSE is a bit different, though broadly similar (based on SA)..there is a design paper floating around somewhere, which is a bit out of date. Kris --82I3+IH0IqGh5yIs Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+K7bsWry0BWjoQKURApTWAKDt8gBxeLZF0m2PZso4djGPheiR7wCePhxn 7SJ5btYEt2MqzxAclBTpgWQ= =3+B0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --82I3+IH0IqGh5yIs-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message