Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      02 Nov 1999 11:47:02 +0000
From:      Randell Jesup <rjesup@wgate.com>
To:        freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Threads models and FreeBSD. (Next Step)
Message-ID:  <ybuyachf749.fsf@jesup.eng.tvol.net.jesup.eng.tvol.net>
In-Reply-To: "Russell L. Carter"'s message of "Tue, 02 Nov 1999 07:38:19 -0700"
References:  <19991102143819.5D0F23B@chomsky.pinyon.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Russell L. Carter" <rcarter@chomsky.Pinyon.ORG> writes:
>%>> >Disagree.  I want lightweight processes to have their own quantum
>%>> >not limited (in total) to the parent process quantum.

>%There is not much point in making a lightweight process facility
>%if the resulting processes are not lightweight.

	Perhaps - but what defines 'lightweight'?  I've always thought that
processes that share resources/memory were 'lightweight'.  Also, I think
the proposal was that you could have 1 to N LWP's for a process with N
threads.  Whatever you want to call them, there certainly seems to be
a use for 'something' between user-scheduled threads and processes.

>There isn't much point to doing this effort if the
>pthread_*sched* functions don't actually mean much in the
>global context.

	This is a very good point.

>People building large scale distributed objects that
>are also high performance require fine grained schedulability
>of individual threads.  I can provide references that demonstrate
>how low level thread scheduling architecture 
>affect high level services.

	While I wouldn't want you to go far out of your way, a reference
or two (or summary thereof) might help people.

-- 
Randell Jesup, Worldgate Communications, ex-Scala, ex-Amiga OS team ('88-94)
rjesup@wgate.com





To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ybuyachf749.fsf>