Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 12:16:00 -0700 (MST) From: "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@narnia.plutotech.com> To: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Kernel threading (was Re: Thread Scheduler bug) Message-ID: <199811011916.MAA08880@narnia.plutotech.com> In-Reply-To: <199811011622.AAA25247@spinner.netplex.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <199811011622.AAA25247@spinner.netplex.com.au> you wrote: > > You need a kernel stack per thread in the lightweight model, up to a limit > of the number of cpus running, because it's needed for each possibly > active thread to make a syscall. I don't see how you can achieve such a limited number of stacks without a thread continuation model. If a thread calls tsleep while in kernel context, where does it's kernel stack go? If you always restart the thread from a thread continuation point, you can throw its stack away. This is certainly very desirable, but the impact on the kernel would be extremely large. -- Justin To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199811011916.MAA08880>