From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Dec 8 16:45:16 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3204E152F0 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 16:45:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA19203 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 01:45:10 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id BAA25089 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 01:45:10 +0100 (MET) Received: from alpo.whistle.com (alpo.whistle.com [207.76.204.38]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ABF914E1A for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 16:44:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from julian@whistle.com) Received: from current1.whiste.com (current1.whistle.com [207.76.205.22]) by alpo.whistle.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA70157; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 16:44:51 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 16:44:50 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer To: "Daniel M. Eischen" Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threads discussion In-Reply-To: <384EF8CB.D83F47EB@vigrid.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 8 Dec 1999, Daniel M. Eischen wrote: > Julian Elischer wrote: > > > > is not dead.. we're all catching our breath! > > > > Tomorrow at the Bay Area Freebsd Users Group (BAFUG) > > there will be a food fight over threads kernel support. > > Anyone within driving range is urged to attend. > > Hey, this isn't fair! :-) just chance.. Alfred perlstein will be there too. > > > I'll be there, as will Matt, Terry, and Jason. > > If I wasn't 2700 miles away, I'd be there too. Please > let us know what was discussed. I think we'll just be swapping ideas. but we MAY be able to get the speaker phone hooked in.. wouldn't that be interesting? I'm not sure how I'd get a conference call set up but that may even be a possibility. (!) > > BTW, I don't think the kernel can always know if a subprocess > is in a notification upcall by looking at the user stack > pointer. The upcall notification may be temporarily switched > to resume a preempted thread holding a critical resource. I wasn't thinking of just upcalls but it may be important to know whether it is in the scheduler when responding to a pagefault. I think page faults in the scheduler should just block. > > Dan Eischen > eischen@vigrid.com > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message