Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 16:49:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> To: ticso@cicely.de Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG>, freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ithread preemption Message-ID: <15735.50037.249179.284948@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> In-Reply-To: <20020905204558.GF13050@cicely9.cicely.de> References: <15735.44660.835003.901974@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <XFMail.20020905153533.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <15735.47204.905352.900631@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <20020905201443.GD13050@cicely9.cicely.de> <15735.48281.30915.800894@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <20020905204558.GF13050@cicely9.cicely.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bernd Walter writes: > On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 04:20:41PM -0400, Andrew Gallatin wrote: > > > > Bernd Walter writes: > > > OK - I have some basic understandig problems here. > > > > > > Why should ithreads ever return to PAL? > > > > Because PAL initiates the interrupt and creates a stackframe on the > > interrupted thread's kernel stack. It then calls the OSes interrupt > > vector. In order to restore the state of the world to be like it was > > before the interrupt happened, we need to return back to pal. > > That's clear, but this is not the ithread. > ithreads never return - see ithread_loop() in kern_intr.c. > I think we were being sloppy with our language. The code which schedules the ithread is what returns back to PAL. Drew To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-alpha" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15735.50037.249179.284948>