From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Nov 28 18:28: 2 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from shell.unixbox.com (shell.unixbox.com [207.211.45.65]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39F3D37B400 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:27:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (fengyue@localhost) by shell.unixbox.com (8.11.1/8.11.0) with ESMTP id eAT2SrO58318; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:28:53 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:28:53 -0800 (PST) From: FengYue X-Sender: fengyue@shell.unixbox.com To: Alfred Perlstein Cc: David Petrou , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: thread model questions In-Reply-To: <20001128182341.V8051@fw.wintelcom.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote: ->> 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. -> Sorry for being unclear. I actually meant "Would the async system calls considered the case for 'preemptive at kernel level'". ->-- ->-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