Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 31 Oct 1999 22:47:04 -0500 (EST)
From:      Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>
To:        julian@whistle.com, nate@mt.sri.com
Cc:        eischen@vigrid.com, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Threads models and FreeBSD.
Message-ID:  <199911010347.WAA20149@pcnet1.pcnet.com>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I think what is being asked for is the thread version of  the
> > signal catching capabilities of the present  tsleep().
> > The situation is no worse than it is at present.
> 
> Sort of, except that for every process you can only have one thread in
> kernel space, so the only deadlocks that can occur happen in
> userland, since the kernel has no primitives for doing 'synchronization'
> and notification.  (Unless you consider the SysV stuff, but as we've
> seen, people tend to screw up using that as well. :)

No, I want to be able to have multiple threads in a single process
be in kernel space.  Only one can be running, but others can be
blocked.

Dan Eischen
eischen@vigrid.com




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?199911010347.WAA20149>