From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Nov 2 7:51: 7 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5884D1504E for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 07:50:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA22653 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 16:50:51 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id QAA80642 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 16:50:51 +0100 (MET) Received: from mail.tvol.com (mail.wgate.com [38.219.83.4]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 657FB1504E for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 07:50:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rjesup@wgate.com) Received: from jesup.eng.tvol.net (jesup.eng.tvol.net [10.32.2.26]) by mail.tvol.com (8.8.8/8.8.3) with ESMTP id KAA10625 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 10:45:55 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: Randell Jesup To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threads models and FreeBSD. (Next Step) References: <19991102143819.5D0F23B@chomsky.pinyon.org> From: Randell Jesup Date: 02 Nov 1999 11:47:02 +0000 In-Reply-To: "Russell L. Carter"'s message of "Tue, 02 Nov 1999 07:38:19 -0700" Message-ID: X-Mailer: Gnus v5.6.43/Emacs 20.4 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG "Russell L. Carter" 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