Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 28 Nov 1999 22:16:02 -0500
From:      "Daniel M. Eischen" <eischen@vigrid.com>
To:        Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>
Cc:        Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com>, arch@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Threads stuff
Message-ID:  <3841EFF2.667F105@vigrid.com>
References:  <Pine.BSF.4.10.9911281515150.544-100000@current1.whistle.com> <3841CFB4.F5B9A2BD@vigrid.com> <199911290133.RAA47395@apollo.backplane.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Matthew Dillon wrote:
> 
> :If the kernel is going to automatically complete KSEs, then I would only
> :do it when new KSEs block or when the process is resumed.  The UTS is timing
> :the current thread, so you don't want to do work for other threads while
> :the UTS is going to count it against the currently running thread.  If the
> :kernel is not automatically completing the KSEs, then the UTS can be notified
> :of unblocked KSEs at any time.
> 
>     The kernel *must* complete blocked KSE's or you run into a thousand
>     potential system deadlock situations.  We have no choice there.

The question is whether the kernel completes the KSEs automatically without
direction from the UTS, or if the UTS is informed of the unblocking and later
chooses to direct the kernel to complete the KSEs.  The KSEs _will_ be
completed, it's just who is directly responsible for their being completed.

Dan Eischen
eischen@vigrid.com




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?3841EFF2.667F105>