From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 18 16:23:09 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17FA837B401; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:23:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns1.xcllnt.net (209-128-86-226.bayarea.net [209.128.86.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 014B443F3F; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:23:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@xcllnt.net) Received: from dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net [192.168.4.201]) by ns1.xcllnt.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6INMVv1070925; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:22:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@piii.pn.xcllnt.net) Received: from dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6INMVNd035643; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:22:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net) Received: (from marcel@localhost) by dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h6INMULf035642; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:22:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:22:30 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar To: deischen@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20030718232230.GA35603@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> References: <20030718223119.GB35221@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i cc: threads@freebsd.org cc: Julian Elischer Subject: Re: Rearranging kse mailbox X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 23:23:09 -0000 On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 06:40:07PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > Note that the extra level of indirection on ia64 can be avoided if > > we put the thread control structure at a negative offset from TP. > > The layout would be something like: > > > > -... 0 8 16 ...+ > > [thread structure][DTV pointer][free][static TLS] > > ^ > > TP > > Can we make this work so that we are not limited to > 8192 (or whatever max user LDTs are) threads on i386? The layout may be specific to ia64. I don't think we should try to unify too much across platforms. As for the LDT limit: We could keep %gs constant and change the LDT entry on a thread switch. That way we only use 1 LDT entry... -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net