From owner-freebsd-arch  Mon Nov 20 23:54:26 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mail.interware.hu (mail.interware.hu [195.70.32.130])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 6C40037B479; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 23:54:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pretoria-36.budapest.interware.hu ([195.70.53.100] helo=elischer.org)
	by mail.interware.hu with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1 (Debian))
	id 13y8Fu-0001sg-00; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 08:54:19 +0100
Message-ID: <3A1A2A26.4CF0B849@elischer.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 23:54:14 -0800
From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT i386)
X-Accept-Language: en, hu
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: arch@FreeBSD.ORG, smp@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Threads (KSE etc) comments
References: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1001120172140.1280A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

CC's trimmed,

which group should stay? SMP or ARCH?

Daniel Eischen wrote:
> 

> 
> With the exception of  where the thread
> scheduler (UTS hereafter) allocates/requests one KSEG with
> exactly one KSE.

there is no reason why ANY KSEG need sto be limitted to one KSE
by the kernel unless there is only one CPU.
The PTHREAD_SCOPE_PROCESS, KSEG may have one or more KSEs
assigned to it depending
on whether the UTS wants to create more or not....

Thinking about what Terry said, I guess you could have M>N
(M KSEs, N CPUs) in a KSEG, but I don't think it would be 
useful to do so.

> 
> > One gross hack might be to limit the number of total KSEs to
> > the number of permitted child processes for a given process,
> > but I'd hesitate to encourage people to use the not generally
> > exposed and non (POSIX) standard interfaces that would be
> > needed for a process to try to do this automatically.
> 
> You have to be careful with terminology.  If we're going by
> what Jason has defined in his paper, the KSEG is the entity
> that has the quantum, not the KSE.  So the KSEGs would be
> limited to the permitted number of child processes.

yes, but that gives the ability to use M times as much CPU as a
nonthreaded process.

> 
> If you want to have a separate quantum for each KSE, then
> you can probably eliminate the KSEG.  I've made this comment
> also.

It's possible that we may be able to do so, but 
not yet..

> 
> --
> Dan Eischen

-- 
      __--_|\  Julian Elischer
     /       \ julian@elischer.org
    (   OZ    ) World tour 2000
---> X_.---._/  presently in:  Budapest
            v


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message