libkse -> libpthread

[Julian Elischer]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, Daniel Eischen wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, Igor Sysoev wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 21 Apr 2003, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> > > Libpthread can be made to behave the same as libthr just
> > > by forcing every thread to be scope system.  Currently,
> > > the implementation for scope system threads does have
> > > a small amount of overhead in that they still get upcalls
> > > after the thread blocks in the kernel (in this case
> > > the KSE just reenters the kernel with kse_release()
> > > and waits for the thread to become unblocked).  These
> > > KSEs also require a small stack separate from the
> > > thread's stack.  The code is in place (in the UTS) to
> > > not require a separate stack and not get any upcalls
> > > for these threads, but we just need a bit more
> > > kernel work to optimize this overhead away.
> > 
> > But why is not it implemented via setting kse_mailbox.km_curthread to NULL ?
> > As I understand it's way to disable upcalls when UTS is preempted
> > by the kernel (the time slice ended, the page in operation, etc.)
> > i.e. UTS should always run as 1:1 thread.
> > Had it been changed ?  How is UTS protected now ?

UTS is protected.. this way.. but other threads can disable upcalls by 
setting a flag in the mailbox


> 
> We can't use this method yet for 1:1 because we don't
> have a way to redirect a signal to a thread running
> like this.  We need kse_thr_interrupt() to have a signal
> argument and for the kernel to install the signal frame
> on the stack of the target thread (or keep it pending
> on the thread if masked).
> 
> -- 
> Dan Eischen
> 
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-threads at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-threads-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>