Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 23:27:17 -0700 From: Jason Evans <jasone@canonware.com> To: Seth Leigh <seth@pengar.com> Cc: smp@freebsd.org Subject: SA project (was Re: SMP project status) Message-ID: <20001023232717.T3993@canonware.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001024013147.00c4d798@hobbiton.shire.net>; from seth@pengar.com on Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 01:31:47AM -0700 References: <20001024010318.12831.qmail@web1704.mail.yahoo.com> <20001024010318.12831.qmail@web1704.mail.yahoo.com> <20001023182331.P3993@canonware.com> <3.0.6.32.20001024013147.00c4d798@hobbiton.shire.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 01:31:47AM -0700, Seth Leigh wrote: > At 06:23 PM 10/23/2000 -0700, Jason Evans wrote: > > >Work is ramping up on scheduler activations, which will allow scaling of > >threaded applications in proportion to the number of processors. > > 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? See http://people.freebsd.org/~jasone/refs/p95-anderson.pdf for a description of scheduler activations. > Won't this require a whole new thread library implementation? If so, who > is leading that effort? The kernel modifications and userland work aren't being treated as separate projects, but they probably will not be implemented in parallel. Large portions of libc_r should be useable. As for someone leading the effort, there isn't a formal leader. I'm the instigator, and Dan Eischen and David O'Brien have expressed interest in working together on it. Jason To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001023232717.T3993>