Return to BSD News archive
From: Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp> Newsgroups: comp.programming.threads,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: [??] pure kernel vs. dual concurrency implementations Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 14:48:44 +0900 Organization: CET Lines: 20 Message-ID: <330FDA3C.6753@cet.co.jp> References: <330CE6A4.63B0@cet.co.jp> <874tf7lbxc.fsf@serpentine.com> <Pine.BSF.3.95.970221180902.15657A-100000@hydra.parkplace.ne.jp> <87d8ttinp6.fsf@serpentine.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: a05m.cet.co.jp Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!ns.saard.net!spasun.tpa.com.au!duster.adelaide.on.net!news.ade.connect.com.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!uunet!in1.uu.net!192.244.176.52!news.iij.ad.jp!news.CET.CO.JP!usenet Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.programming.threads:3288 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:36024 Bryan O'Sullivan wrote: > > m> Ok. Just to confirm, there are dual concurrency implementations > m> that do the non-blocking thing, right? > > Not that I am aware of; after all, there is no reason to jump through > hoops to lay non-blocking behaviour underneath blocking calls in a > two-level implementation. Ah, that explains why I got odd replies in some of my private mail on this topic before I posted. People have implemented both two-level and pure userlevel on the same platform though. I guess there were done independently to address a deficiency of the other model. Regards, Mike Hancock