From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Jan 31 08:55:50 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA00776
          for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 31 Jan 1997 08:55:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA00771
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Fri, 31 Jan 1997 08:55:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id JAA02872; Fri, 31 Jan 1997 09:54:22 -0700
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Message-Id: <199701311654.JAA02872@phaeton.artisoft.com>
Subject: Re: Using rfork() / threads
To: julian@current1.whistle.com (Julian Elischer)
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 09:54:22 -0700 (MST)
Cc: cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de, terry@lambert.org, rminnich@Sarnoff.COM,
        freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970130233116.15337B-100000@current1.whistle.com> from "Julian Elischer" at Jan 30, 97 11:37:26 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> the reason that (1) is not yet implimented is that the kernel
> stack is in that VM at the same address for each process,
> and this MUST be unique per process..
> The SMP code must have solved this some how,
> so if they finally check in that code we should be able
> to switch to (1).

Stack per processor.

Really, there needs to be the concept of a kernel execution context,
for a *lot* of reasons.  Foremost would be the implementation of
an async call gate.


					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.