Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 15:20:17 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> To: eischen@vigrid.com, james@westongold.com, peter@netplex.com.au Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG, jb@cimlogic.com.au, lists@tar.com Subject: RE: Kernel threading (was Re: Thread Scheduler bug) Message-ID: <199811062020.PAA12622@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Perhaps I'm being very dense, but you'll have to explain to me what > you are concerned about here. > > *My* concern is that pthread_self, and access to thread-specific data, > should be as fast as possible. Writing thread-hot libraries without > good thread specific data is irksome to say the least. My point was that you can't have just one common pointer (address) to TSD that is changed on thread schedule as it would limit you to being able to execute only one thread per process at a time. To take advantage of multiple processors, you'd need at least as many TSD pointers as CPUs. Julian discussed this in a previous response. > I'd guess that each 'kernel thread' would benefit from a private page > too. > > James > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Daniel Eischen [mailto:eischen@vigrid.com] > >... > > > I'd like to suggest that threads (at least kernel threads) > > > should share an address space EXCEPT for a page (or maybe > > > more than one) that will have a common address in each thread. > > > > What about same process threads executing on multiple processors? > > > > common_address[MAX_CPUS] ? Dan Eischen eischen@vigrid.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199811062020.PAA12622>