Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 17:49:34 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> To: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threads models and FreeBSD. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9910311743490.8816-100000@home.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <199911010116.SAA13482@mt.sri.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, Nate Williams wrote: > > > > 3/ Inability of one thread to block aother thread unless they are > > > > intentionally synchronising. > > > > > > I think this can be dropped, since it's both confusing and almost > > > contradictory. There is no such way to 'block' a regular process, > > > although one can stop it in Unix, so the issue of blocking implies a > > > blocking on something, which is allowed. > > > > What this means is that if one thread does a read() and blocks, the other > > threads don't all block. > > > > maybe I should reword it to: > > "Inability of one thread to unwittingly block another thread during normal > > operations" ? > > How about the abilty for multiple threads to execute at the same time? > :) well that requires multiple processors.. see #2 maybe I need to make it more explicit? > > The double negative implies that we would not add functionality that > might be desired. > > > > > 4/ All threads see the same address space (exactly). > > > > > > > > 5/ All threads share the same file resources. > > > > > > All threads share all the same resources (except for thread-specific stack). > > Well they can see all the other stacks, they just don't use them as the > > stack. How would you better word that? > > The resources are *all* shared (not just file resources), but each > thread has it's own thread-specific stack. ok gimme a better wording.. yours leads me to wonder if there is somethign special about the mamory a particular thread's stack is on.. (they don't share processor registers BTW, nor do they neccesarily share proccessors if they have affinity) > > > Richard seaman's work is available. it can be used prety much without > > change.. Do we want to do that? > > Another thing I'd like to add to the requirements list is that the > threads use 'standard' threading mechanisms for safety, such as > mutex/semaphore, etc.., which should exist in the kernel as well. > > This is inline with the Posix stuff, and rather than invent our 'own' > new kind of data structure, I'd like to stick with known solutions that > work and everyone for the most part understands. > > Howeer, that requirement may be more detailed oriented than what you are > looking for now. yes, though maybe a meta-goal of 'be able to support all pthreads functtionality' is a good idea. > > > > Nate > 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.4.05.9910311743490.8816-100000>