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>