[PATCH] 1:1 Userland threading stage 2.11/4:
dillon at apollo.backplane.com
Sat Feb 3 11:34:44 PST 2007
:Matthew Dillon wrote:
:> Just as an aside, I seem to remember POSIX making a distinction between
:> 'global' signals and 'per-thread' signals. Something about a signal that
:> cannot be handled by a thread is queued globally and then processed by
:> the first thread that can take it, or something like that.
:The current code unconditionally (tries to) queue to the first lwp; the
:next step will queue it on the first lwp that doesn't mask the signal,
:and failing that, globally. Though again, that's a next-step :).
:> This would imply that we need to have a two-level signal delivery
:> architecture (lwp layer and process layer).
:I guess so too. Simon already has some thoughts about is, we talked this
:afternoon (while I was reviewing the patch).
: Thomas E. Spanjaard
: tgen at netphreax.net
I think we want to avoid having to scan the LWP list for a process.
It is almost certainly easier for the LWP itself to simply check both
signal sets (the per-LWP set and the per-process set). We are only
talking about a few instructions here... maybe a few nanoseconds in
More information about the Kernel