From owner-acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org  Thu Dec  6 07:27:40 2001
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by castle.jp.freebsd.org (8.9.3+3.2W/8.7.3) id HAA78113;
	Thu, 6 Dec 2001 07:27:40 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from owner-acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org)
Received: from mass.dis.org (mass.dis.org [216.240.45.41])
	by castle.jp.freebsd.org (8.9.3+3.2W/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA78107;
	Thu, 6 Dec 2001 07:27:38 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from msmith@mass.dis.org)
Received: from mass.dis.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mass.dis.org (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id fB5MWTJ03359;
	Wed, 5 Dec 2001 14:32:30 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from msmith@mass.dis.org)
Message-Id: <200112052232.fB5MWTJ03359@mass.dis.org>
To: Mitsuru IWASAKI <iwasaki@jp.FreeBSD.org>
cc: acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org
In-Reply-To: Message from Mitsuru IWASAKI <iwasaki@jp.FreeBSD.org> 
   of "Thu, 06 Dec 2001 04:13:01 +0900." <20011206.041301.60918133.iwasaki@jp.FreeBSD.org> 
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 14:32:29 -0800
From: Mike Smith <msmith@freebsd.org>
Reply-To: acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org
Precedence: list
X-Distribute: distribute version 2.1 (Alpha) patchlevel 24e+010328
X-Sequence: acpi-jp 1522
Subject: [acpi-jp 1522] Re: Call for testers: Semaphore and Thread implementaion 
Errors-To: owner-acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org
Sender: owner-acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org
X-Originator: msmith@freebsd.org

> > Argh.  I still think that enabling threading in the interpreter is a Bad 
> > Idea.  Unless you can convince me that Microsoft does this by default, I 
> > would rather make it a tunable option.  
> > 
> > Writing threaded code that works properly is difficult; I'd hazard a 
> > guess to say that it's completely beyond your average ASL programmer. 8(
> 
> My concern about current implementation is that task queue kernel
> thread is shared with some other drivers and we cannot estimate how long
> does it take to complete the interpreter execution. 

Whilst most drivers should not expect the generic task queue to
run/complete within any given period of time, I'm basically in
agreement with you here.

> I think having dedicated thread for interpreter and giving chance to
> execute tasks for other drivers is not so bad idea.

You could just implement a private task queue for the interpreter. That'd
be pretty straightforward.

 = Mike
