From owner-freebsd-smp Mon Oct 23 22:28:18 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from gtei1.bellatlantic.net (gtei1.bellatlantic.net [199.45.39.159]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AD1637B479 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 22:28:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from seth-f1pgytg8r3 (client-64-223-145-91.bellatlantic.net [64.223.145.91]) by gtei1.bellatlantic.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA05338 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 01:27:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001024013147.00c4d798@hobbiton.shire.net> X-Sender: seth-pc@hobbiton.shire.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 01:31:47 -0700 To: smp@freebsd.org From: Seth Leigh Subject: Re: SMP project status In-Reply-To: <20001023182331.P3993@canonware.com> References: <20001024010318.12831.qmail@web1704.mail.yahoo.com> <20001024010318.12831.qmail@web1704.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org What exactly does this mean? Are we going to have something like the Solaris LWP, and schedule those instead of processes? Basically, what will be the nature of the FreeBSD thread, in terms of kernel schedulable entities? Won't this require a whole new thread library implementation? If so, who is leading that effort? Seth At 06:23 PM 10/23/2000 -0700, Jason Evans wrote: >On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 06:03:18PM -0700, Yifeng Xu wrote: >> what's status of kernel based pthread implemention? will it still be >> user level pthread library and can not be smp scaled? > >Work is ramping up on scheduler activations, which will allow scaling of >threaded applications in proportion to the number of processors. > >Jason > > >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message