Subject: Re: yet another SA assertion failure with 3.0
To: Christos Zoulas <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Chuck Silvers <email@example.com>
Date: 11/11/2005 18:16:18
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 05:16:21PM +0000, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> >I'd rather just allow the SA code to assume that no one else is
> >messing with LWP scheduling state by disallowing these operations
> >that don't make any sense in an SA context anyway. that way we
> >don't need to think about possible interactions when working on
> >the SA code in the future either.
> This might be the case today, but we are going to be needing some
> _lwp syscalls to control threads when PTHREAD_CONCURRENCY > 1. For
> example how do you kill a thread that is running on a different
> cpu without _lwp_kill()? I don't claim to understand how the virtual
> processor handling is supposed to work, and it would be nice if someone
> who did posted an explanation and a design document on how is all
> this supposed to work with PTHREAD_CONCURRENCY > 1.
the LWP syscalls needed for SA vs. non-SA operation are almost completely
different. I'm only talking about disabling the non-SA LWP syscalls
in SA processes, any SA LWP syscalls would of course remain enabled.