On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, John Baldwin wrote:
> > 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:
> #1 proc
> #2 threadclass
> #3 ??? (thread carrier (spindle? :-)) or thread-processor
> #4 thread
> 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).
I think #3 should be thread and #4 should be thread context
(and #2 should be thread [scheduling] group).
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message