Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 15:57:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> To: dick@tar.com, luoqi@watermarkgroup.com Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, peter.jeremy@auss2.alcatel.com.au Subject: Re: flock + kernel threads bug Message-ID: <199904221957.PAA24764@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Maybe. But, if you want POSIX compliant pthreads, you need to be able > to send a signal to a thread (pthread_kill()), as well as to the process > (kill()). Also, you need to be able to set the priority of a thread > (pthread_setschedparam()) as well a the priority of the process > (setpriority() or sched_setscheduler(), etc). The pthread functions > take a pthread_t parameter to identify the threads. If the threads > are kernel threads, how do you communicate to the kernel which thread > you're acting on if the threads are "anonymous" in userland? You still have thread IDs in userland, but you now add: _lwp_kill, _lwp_setschedparam, etc, system calls to control the kernel threads. Or maybe one big _lwp_control... Dan Eischen eischen@vigrid.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199904221957.PAA24764>