atom feed28 messages in org.freebsd.freebsd-archRe: Threads goals version III
FromSent OnAttachments
Julian ElischerOct 31, 1999 7:08 pm 
Julian ElischerOct 31, 1999 11:55 pm 
John BirrellOct 31, 1999 11:56 pm 
Michael Schuster - TSC SunOS GermanyNov 1, 1999 12:51 am 
Andrew ReillyNov 1, 1999 3:11 am 
Daniel EischenNov 1, 1999 4:26 am 
Peter DufaultNov 1, 1999 4:33 am 
Daniel EischenNov 1, 1999 4:33 am 
Randell JesupNov 1, 1999 12:28 pm 
John BirrellNov 1, 1999 1:44 pm 
Peter DufaultNov 1, 1999 1:52 pm 
Jake BurkholderNov 1, 1999 3:17 pm 
Terry LambertNov 4, 1999 10:03 am 
Peter JeremyNov 4, 1999 1:56 pm 
Daniel M. EischenNov 4, 1999 2:48 pm 
Terry LambertNov 4, 1999 2:49 pm 
Terry LambertNov 4, 1999 3:13 pm 
Amancio HastyNov 4, 1999 4:48 pm 
Russell L. CarterNov 4, 1999 5:16 pm 
Amancio HastyNov 4, 1999 6:04 pm 
Daniel M. EischenNov 4, 1999 7:04 pm 
Terry LambertNov 5, 1999 3:00 pm 
Terry LambertNov 5, 1999 3:39 pm 
Amancio HastyNov 5, 1999 4:07 pm 
Daniel C. SobralNov 6, 1999 1:01 am 
Chris CsanadyNov 6, 1999 6:23 pm 
Daniel C. SobralNov 6, 1999 11:48 pm 
Julian ElischerNov 7, 1999 2:11 am 
Subject:Re: Threads goals version III
From:Amancio Hasty (has@rah.star-gate.com)
Date:Nov 4, 1999 4:48:10 pm
List:org.freebsd.freebsd-arch

One could argue that the program should be using a hybrid scheduling class in the kernel in order to achieve this effect, rather than having to have the idea that you would want to schedule seperate kernel schedulable entities within one program.

How to you propose to handle priorieties for different "thread thingies" --- "thread thingies" being a yet to be defined thread implementation.

What I am think is that for whatever reason there are applications which want threads to be running at different priorities for instance "Kaffe" wants or needs threads running at different priorities.

*Not interested in arguing about whether Kaffe's thread management is broken or not *.

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message