From owner-freebsd-current Mon Dec 21 02:35:24 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA05242 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 02:35:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from newsguy.com (smtp.newsguy.com [207.211.168.71]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA05229 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 02:35:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dcsobral@newsguy.com) Received: (from dcsobral@localhost) by newsguy.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id CAA11648; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 02:34:40 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 02:34:40 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199812211034.CAA11648@newsguy.com> X-Mailer: Direct Read Email by Newsguy News Service To: mike@smith.net.au From: "Daniel C. Sobral" Subject: Re: Pb with COMPAT_LINUX_THREADS Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At Mon, 21 Dec 1998 01:13:24 -0800, you wrote > >> The ifdef'd version is to let people look at it and think about it.. >> possibly as has been suggested, the malloc'd space might only be used if >> there is a sharing of signals. Otherwise it might remain in the U area. > >That's certainly one way of doing it. You could implement structure >compression by COW off the parent's copy of the struct instead, that'd >be even more efficient. I have been wondering about this... Multithreading is usually used to improve performance. Wouldn't this "on-demand" allocation of shared signals impact of performance? -- Daniel C. Sobral dcs@newsguy.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message