Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 23:34:02 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> To: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> Cc: "Daniel M. Eischen" <eischen@vigrid.com>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threads Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9911232332000.11412-100000@current1.whistle.com> In-Reply-To: <199911210527.WAA13788@mt.sri.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 20 Nov 1999, Nate Williams wrote: > > > > New calls must be able to return and say > > > > "hey it's not me returnuing, but actually a new KSE, " > > > > > > Not only that, but you need a way for it to be 'aborted' out and have it > > > cleanup as it goes. I suspect that this will require re-writing a large > > > number of syscalls with threading in mind, and leaving the 'old' calls > > > in place will allow more flexibility as things change. > > > > > > I could envision the 'old' calls going away at some point as the new > > > calls get completely fleshed out and tested, to be replaced with simple > > > wrappers for the threaded calls. > > > > Maybe in the libraries, but we will need to keep the old syscalls in the > > kernel effectively forever. (for old binaries) It's not much of a cost.. > > (look at linux emulation). > > Like I said above, the old calls could be simple wrappers for the new > 'threaded' syscalls, which gives us the ability to have both. > > The 'old' implementations would go away, not the old calls. The advantage of the methid that Dan is talking about (and I too) is that really there doesn't have to be very much re-writing of syscalls. you can basically do all the work in the tsleep call, the mswitch and teh trap (syscall) code. everything in between those points basically stays pretty much as-is. > > > 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.4.10.9911232332000.11412-100000>