Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 13:30:03 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: Jonathan Mini <mini@FreeBSD.org>, Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 10740 for review Message-ID: <XFMail.20020503133003.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0205031008210.83245-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 03-May-2002 Julian Elischer wrote: > to some extent I agree with you but realise that all tehuma stuff has > occured since young Edith dorothy was born.. :-) > (i.e the patches predate uma) I realize that, I just think that the goal should be to eliminate the thread free-list in favor of letting uma do its job, but that to avoid any need to malloc in msleep, we instead let each KSE always have a spare "hot" thread for P_KSE processes and that when it uses the hot thread to do an upcall, the first act of the new thread will be to allocate a new hot spare. Does that sound ok? -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe p4-projects" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.20020503133003.jhb>