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
On 2001-Jul-06 18:14:03 -0700, Julian Elischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
#3 ??? (thread carrier (spindle? :-)) or thread-processor
A spindle is a physical disk drive (or at least independent head
assembly) - I/O rates are associated with spindles rather than
[virtual/RAID] disks.
If we're going
John Baldwin wrote:
#3struct upctx (upcall-context), virtcpu, thrdslot (thread slot)
#4struct lwp(decided)
usually the 'lwp' will be passed around so diffs to NetBSD will be
minimalised.
One thing to note is that as Vahalia (sp?) points out, lwp
on SVR4 and Solaris is
Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Peter Wemm wrote:
Julian Elischer wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Daniel Eischen wrote:
-proc-
-thrgrp-
-thr-
-thrctx-
interesting, though the thrctx maps most closely to a userland thread.
there may be many
Peter Wemm wrote:
Jason Evans wrote:
On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 02:16:16PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
[...]
I think there is a clear argument for #1 to be "struct proc". I don't much
care what #2, #3, and #4 are called.
I am of the rather strong opinion that calling #3/#4 "struct
that reminds me..
The reason I want to work out the names now is because I have a system up
and running with the process structure split into these pieces and I wan
teh names finalised before I take the next step which involves editing
almost every kernel file.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to
On 06-Jul-01 Julian Elischer wrote:
Peter Wemm wrote:
Jason Evans wrote:
On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 02:16:16PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
[...]
I think there is a clear argument for #1 to be struct proc. I don't
much
care what #2, #3, and #4 are called.
I am of the rather
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.
On 07-Jul-01 Julian Elischer wrote:
that reminds me..
The reason I want to work out the names now is because I have a system up
and running with the process structure split into these pieces and I wan
teh names finalised before I take the next step which involves editing
almost every
On 07-Jul-01 Julian Elischer wrote:
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
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
On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Daniel Eischen wrote:
-proc-
-thrgrp-
-thr-
-thrctx-
interesting, though the thrctx maps most closely to a userland thread.
there may be many threads running on each #3.
--
Dan Eischen
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe
Julian Elischer wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Daniel Eischen wrote:
-proc-
-thrgrp-
-thr-
-thrctx-
interesting, though the thrctx maps most closely to a userland thread.
there may be many threads running on each #3.
IMHO, I like this less than kse/kseg/ksec/proc.
On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Peter Wemm wrote:
Julian Elischer wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Daniel Eischen wrote:
-proc-
-thrgrp-
-thr-
-thrctx-
interesting, though the thrctx maps most closely to a userland thread.
there may be many threads running on each #3.
Jason Evans wrote:
On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 02:16:16PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
Almost all of the current 'proc' pointers being passed around the system
in syscalls will be changed to the #4 item. In addition, most accesses to
curproc would point to a curthread (curr-#4) or a
On 2001-Jul-02 14:16:16 -0700, Julian Elischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The time has come (now that we have a design) to assign names to the
various entities that will be created when we implement the
(current name) KSE code.
I'm reasonably sure that there's prior art here. What do other OS's
The time has come (now that we have a design) to assign names to the
various entities that will be created when we implement the
(current name) KSE code.
I have already done initial work on this and have a system running with
the proc structure split into 4 parts.
The names of these parts
Oh what a bikeshed you've begun. :)
* Julian Elischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010702 14:39] wrote:
The time has come (now that we have a design) to assign names to the
various entities that will be created when we implement the
(current name) KSE code.
I have already done initial work on
On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Oh what a bikeshed you've begun. :)
Proc, this keeps the unix convention, a task is confusing, at least
to me because afaik in Linux a task is actually a thread. Keeping it
as proc will also require fewer changes to the code. :)
Actually this
On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Julian Elischer wrote:
The time has come (now that we have a design) to assign names to the
various entities that will be created when we implement the
(current name) KSE code.
I have already done initial work on this and have a system running with
the proc structure
On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Scheduling control block. Remove 'Process' because as far as I
understand it, it's not really a process, it's a group of threads.
SCB is SCSI Command Block.
--
Dan Eischen
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe
21 matches
Mail list logo
