Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 08:13:57 +0800 From: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, dima@tejblum.dnttm.rssi.ru, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: calcru and upages Message-ID: <19990524001357.5311763@overcee.netplex.com.au> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 23 May 1999 08:57:01 %2B0200." <7757.927442621@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <199905230245.MAA13333@godzilla.zeta.org.au>, Bruce Evans writes: > >>calcru() access p_stats, which is in upages. Therefore, as I understand, > >>it should not be called on a swapped out process. Neither calcru() nor > > > >Does anyone object to moving everything except the stack from the upages > >to the proc table? > > not me. I'd also like to implement a proper clone(2) ala Linux. We have most of the infrastructure in place already, using that and comparing with NetBSD's take on the subject should be fairly useful in the end. The main difference between clone(2) and rfork(2) is that clone() takes a stack argument and is more specific about certain sharing semantics. At present these are emulated via flags added into rfork's visibility, I think it would be cleaner to just use a proper syscall interface onto fork1() rather than bend rfork(2) even more. Cheers, -Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990524001357.5311763>