Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!news.unimelb.EDU.AU!munnari.OZ.AU!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.syd.connect.com.au!phaedrus.kralizec.net.au!news.mel.aone.net.au!grumpy.fl.net.au!news.webspan.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!not-for-mail From: Chris Csanady <ccsanady@nyx.pr.mcs.net> Newsgroups: comp.programming.threads,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: [??] pure kernel vs. dual concurrency implementations Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 23:41:42 -0600 Organization: MCSNet Services Lines: 13 Message-ID: <330E8716.167EB0E7@nyx.pr.mcs.net> References: <330CE6A4.63B0@cet.co.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: nyx.pr.mcs.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (X11; I; FreeBSD 3.0-CURRENT i386) Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.programming.threads:3276 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:35942 Michael Hancock wrote: > > I've been talking to some people who are pro pure kernel threading vs. > a dual kernel and userland model when it comes to implementation on a > traditional Unix kernel design like FreeBSD. > There was a discussion on the hackers a while ago with the subject "Re: clone()/rfork()/threads (Re: Inferno for FreeBSD)" that you might want to look at. I didn't follow it closely, but Terry explained a bunch of stuff, and mentioned that the DEC model is what we want.. Chris