From owner-freebsd-questions Mon Dec 4 08:50:56 1995 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id IAA15371 for questions-outgoing; Mon, 4 Dec 1995 08:50:56 -0800 Received: from halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu (halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.159]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id IAA15352 ; Mon, 4 Dec 1995 08:50:44 -0800 Received: by halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu; (5.65/1.1.8.2/19Aug95-0530PM) id AA17846; Mon, 4 Dec 1995 11:50:28 -0500 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 11:50:28 -0500 From: "Garrett A. Wollman" Message-Id: <9512041650.AA17846@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> To: Julian Elischer Cc: swaits@pr.erau.edu (Stephen Waits), questions@FreeBSD.org, proven@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Threads? C++ Task Library? In-Reply-To: <199512040328.TAA02724@ref.tfs.com> References: <199512040328.TAA02724@ref.tfs.com> Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk < said: > At this time there are no KERNEL threads, [...] > at some stage more distant, there will be kernel support for > threaded programming. but that's a ways off still. It is strongly believed in some part of the research community that implementing threads in the kernel is a Really Bad Idea(tm). What you actually want to do, these people say, is to implement threads in user-space with a few hooks in the kernel (``kernel threading assist'') to allow the user-mode thread scheduler to get control at appropriate times. This has the benefit that an individual program can easily specify and/or modify its own thread-scheduling policy without affecting any other program or requiring changes to the kernel. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | Shashish is simple, it's discreet, it's brief. ... wollman@lcs.mit.edu | Shashish is the bonding of hearts in spite of distance. Opinions not those of| It is a bond more powerful than absence. We like people MIT, LCS, ANA, or NSA| who like Shashish. - Claude McKenzie + Florent Vollant