Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 15:49:11 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> To: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threads stuff Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9911271542410.544-100000@current1.whistle.com> In-Reply-To: <19991127223909.22A511FCF@io.yi.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 27 Nov 1999, Jake Burkholder wrote: > > Julian Elischer wrote: > > > > > > > As long as the UTS was informed of the time spent in the kernel (I suppose > > via the IO control block?) for each KSE, then that would probably be good > > enough. > > I've put a diagram up on my web page that tries to incorporate > some of these ideas. I haven't included the queue-ing, because > that seems basically agreed upon. [...] > I'm just going from what Daniel said about libc_r having > to get the time of day and set the interval timer in > order to do a context switch, which can probably be > done in one system call. Either the context can be > saved in userland, in which case the scheduler returns > normally, and does a longjmp or the equivalent, > or the thread could be resumed as part of the > system call. > I don't know what Danthiks but this has alot more involvement or the kernel and boundary crossing than I was envisionning. I will try make aset of diagrams that outline the state of various objects related to a thread at various stages.. Julian 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?Pine.BSF.4.10.9911271542410.544-100000>