Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 21 Nov 2000 07:29:19 -0500 (EST)
From:      Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>
To:        Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
Cc:        arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Threads (KSE etc) comments
Message-ID:  <Pine.SUN.3.91.1001121070012.12667B-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
In-Reply-To: <3A1A2A26.4CF0B849@elischer.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 20 Nov 2000, Julian Elischer wrote:
> CC's trimmed,
> 
> which group should stay? SMP or ARCH?

I've stripped SMP.  KSEs were first brought up under -arch, and
for the most part, we'd be having the same discussion without
SMP availability.  Feel free to change it to -smp if you wish.

> 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....

It's been (mostly) decided that a PTHREAD_SCOPE_PROCESS thread
runs by itself in it's own KSEG and KSE.  This is what I am
referring to above.  And I'm not saying the kernel limits it
to 1 KSE, the UTS does this because it is running a scope
system thread and doesn't want another KSE.

> > 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.

Whatever.  Create yet another resource limit then.  I think
we all know that there has to be some limit.  Exactly what
the limit is, can be decided later.

> > 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..

I'm willing to work with it either way, but it could make
it easier from the kernels point of view if you did get
rid of the KSEG.

-- 
Dan Eischen


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" 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.3.91.1001121070012.12667B-100000>