Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 00:19:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: "restricted" kernel threads implementation from NetBSD via newconfig Message-ID: <199906280719.AAA18001@apollo.backplane.com> References: <Pine.BSF.3.95.990627233124.8298O-100000@current1.whistle.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:please yes.. :eventually we'll be using it to fire off a thread for every interrupt :source if we go the BSDI way. (as dicussed with various people at USENIX) : :I was actually thinking about this today... : :now this is threads within the kernel, and not kernel support for user :threads right? : :julian I think we desparately need a kernel threads implementation. *Any* implementation, so we can start messing around with it! Even if it isn't the one we eventually choose. Once we have something we can add interrupt-thread support to it and then move some of the more innocuous interrupt-based device drivers over to it to generate test cases for the various SMP mechanisms people have been discussing. I was thinking, specifically, of moving a few of the ethernet devices, which tend to have relatively simplistic interrupt-level code - a perfect test case for us because it will be fairly easy to port and fairly easy to measure performance under load. -Matt Matthew Dillon <dillon@backplane.com> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199906280719.AAA18001>