Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:23:41 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: FengYue <fengyue@bluerose.windmoon.nu> Cc: David Petrou <dpetrou@cs.cmu.edu>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: thread model questions Message-ID: <20001128182341.V8051@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0011281621550.55559-100000@shell.unixbox.com>; from fengyue@bluerose.windmoon.nu on Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 04:34:39PM -0800 References: <20001127163948.S8051@fw.wintelcom.net> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0011281621550.55559-100000@shell.unixbox.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* FengYue <fengyue@bluerose.windmoon.nu> [001128 16:32] wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > ->> I thought it's preemptive purely at user-level since the threads are > ->> scheduled by thread lib at user-level only. No? > -> > ->What are you asking? Give a scenario and I'll explain what should > ->happen. > -> > > Hmm, actually I don't know in which case it'd be considered as "preemptive > at kernel level"... In the case where a thread calls a syscall and gets > blocked, the entire process gets blocked not just that thread. In > the case where the syscalls are converted to asynchronous calls, would > this be the case? No it wouldn't. The async nature of the call would prevent the process from blocking therefore the threads wouldn't block either blocking. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." 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?20001128182341.V8051>