Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 17:05:06 +1100 (EST) From: John Birrell <jb@cimlogic.com.au> To: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams) Cc: jb@cimlogic.com.au, nate@mt.sri.com, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc_r/uthread pthread_private.h uthread_yield.c Message-ID: <199803080605.RAA11090@cimlogic.com.au> In-Reply-To: <199803080555.WAA06789@mt.sri.com> from Nate Williams at "Mar 7, 98 10:55:10 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nate Williams wrote: > Fair enough, but it seems that a stable VM would be tested just as well > with normal processes, so why the need for heavyweight 'threads'? I don't understand the VM implementation to know if this is true. I guess I just trust John Dyson to do it the best way he knows how. 8-) > > > In the long term, kernel threads will be more than just a > > check-in-a-box, IMHO. > > Good enough. After using threads consistently for about 18 months, I > *like* them, but understand that if they become too heavy, most of the > advantages of using them go away. I like the programming model that allows me to block a thread while it waits for something to complete. This makes the code linear and much easier for me to understand. I've dropped support for operating systems which aren't threaded (like OS9). Unfortunately WinNT is threaded and POSIX wrappers are trivial. Sigh. -- John Birrell - jb@cimlogic.com.au; jb@freebsd.org CIMlogic Pty Ltd, GPO Box 117A, Melbourne Vic 3001, Australia +61 418 353 137 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199803080605.RAA11090>