Call for Developers! Userland threading

Matthew Dillon dillon at
Tue Jul 22 18:31:10 PDT 2003

:>     hahahaha.  dragonthread... hahahaha.
:>     lwkt_thread is good for userland.  I was going to call the kernel
:>     thread's lwkt_thread but I decided to stick with the 5.x 'thread'
:>     convention.
:light weight kernel thread _ thread?  what about 
:lwkt in kernel
:lwut in userspace or just lwt?

    Just lwkt_thread I think.  Sure there's a little pollution but it's
    better to have pollution then confusion.

    Besides, who says we wouldn't eventually be running whole kernels in
    userland?  Then the userland LWKT's would deserve the 'K'.

:The upcall system of KSE seems like the best way to preempt a process for 
:signals.  Even though there should only be one message port from what I 
:understand, what about 2, and having one do an upcall for things which need 
:immediate attention?  If im misunderstanding and every time a message is 
:receive it jumps to a handler just ignore me.
:- -Craig
:cd5697 at xxxxxxxxxx

    An upcall is probably the best way, though as with our IPI messaging
    the kernel would not necessary *have* to always upcall, it could just
    queue the returned message and let the userland pick it up in its own
    good time.

					Matthew Dillon 
					<dillon at xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

More information about the Kernel mailing list