From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Dec 21 21:51:15 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51.attbi.com [204.127.198.38]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED86037B405 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 21:51:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from peter3.wemm.org ([12.232.27.13]) by rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20011222055112.BCCY19716.rwcrmhc51.attbi.com@peter3.wemm.org> for ; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 05:51:12 +0000 Received: from overcee.netplex.com.au (overcee.wemm.org [10.0.0.3]) by peter3.wemm.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id fBM5pBs84315 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 21:51:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from wemm.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by overcee.netplex.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id C28FA38CC; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 21:51:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Julian Elischer Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: blurk! KSE vs the X86 In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 21:51:11 -0800 From: Peter Wemm Message-Id: <20011222055111.C28FA38CC@overcee.netplex.com.au> Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Julian Elischer wrote: > > Ok so we have this wonderful thing called a TSS > there is one per CPU by default, but you can ask that your process has it > own.. that would be one per process.. it has such things as the address > to load the system stack pointer from when running your process and take a > trap e.g. syscall. > > This is in the PCB extension area. At this time there is only the > capacity to set an extension into the single thread that would want it, > and it isn't associated with the process as such via the proc structure, > just via the PCB extension pointer. So since threads are transient in KSE > processes when the thread migrates away (almost immediatly in some cases) > you have no trace of your extension area (hense TSS) so at teh next > swtch() it'll be gone again.. > the QUICK answer is to say that vm86 and KSE can't be mixed, but > is that the best solution we can do? Do not worry about the "best" yet. Lets get a functional baseline code set that can actually do an upcall and actually do something useful before worrying about this sort of thing. ie: until we have something functional in the tree, the policy should be: KSE is not allowed with {VM86, local LDT, PCB extensions [io port access], etc.} The "best" solution will be apparent after we have got the basics working. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; peter@netplex.com.au "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message