On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, John Baldwin wrote:
> > my favourites are:
> > proc, subproc, lwcpu, lwp
> > lwps are parcelled out to lwcpus to run when the appropriate subproc is
> > scheduled.
> One other note. #2 is conceptually a related group of #4's, so I think it's
> name should reflect that. (It's view as a group of #4's is more important than
> as being a part of #1.) So, if you go with lwp (yuck) for #4, #2 should be
> lwpgrp or some such. I still think lwp's overloaded nomenclature is a reason
> to stay away from it. *shrug*
As peter pointe out, NetBSD use lwp as a combination of #3 and #4
(in fact they are mostly #4.. as they include a kernel stack I think)
(hmm need to look at their definitions again)....
I think that an lwp can block. That makes it #4 definitly.
unless we call the 'threads' ?
that would give:
#3 ??? (thread carrier (spindle? :-)) or thread-processor
the 'thread' is a path through code combined with a context.
it proceeds along this path when loaded into a thread-processor
or an "execution-slot" or whatever we want to call #3.
(i.e. it's scheduled).
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message