--YiEDa0DAkWCtVeE4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 08:26:30AM -0400, matthew sporleder wrote:
> On 5/18/07, Bill Stouder-Studenmund <wrstuden@netbsd.org> wrote:
> >As some of you may have noticed on source-changes, I'm working on fixing
> >up Scheduler Activations. Note: all of this is happening on the
> >wrstuden-fixsa branch, which is a branch off of netbsd-4!
>=20
>=20
> How does this affect newlock2 and idlelwp (especially part 4: make
> scheduler(s) modular).

This part doesn't directly. This is about fixing up SA.

Assuming things go well (and I think we're almost to the point of=20
declaring that), I forsee another branch to re-add SA to HEAD. It would be=
=20
based on newlock2 and idlelwp. And whatever else happens to HEAD before=20
it's all done. :-)

=46rom the kernel scheduler point of view, I don't think that SA will make =
a=20
difference. Processes have multiple lwps, and in an SA process, the main=20
differences are that: when an lwp blocks, in addition to everything else=20
that happens, another thread in that process runs (to tell the app about=20
the blockage). When the kernel decidess an lwp can run again, nothing=20
happens until the application also decides to run. There are also=20
messaging actions that happen when an lwp is moved off the processor.

Take care,

Bill

--YiEDa0DAkWCtVeE4
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFGTdjYWz+3JHUci9cRAiN5AJ0doi2a6DKyqIDCb5NL6/NZOp15RwCggqua
o5vmxaUA343nz3426asBrYw=
=T5M1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--YiEDa0DAkWCtVeE4--