Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 11:23:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Jonathan Mini <mini@FreeBSD.org>, Jonathan Mini <mini@FreeBSD.org>, Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 10740 for review Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0205031121550.83245-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20020503133003.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
That's certainly an option, though it would probably allocate more threads than needed. On Fri, 3 May 2002, John Baldwin wrote: > > 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?Pine.BSF.4.21.0205031121550.83245-100000>