From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jun  5 17:00:31 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: arch@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07AA016BF2E;
	Mon,  5 Jun 2006 17:00:31 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from mckusick@chez.mckusick.com)
Received: from chez.mckusick.com (dsl081-247-049.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net
	[64.81.247.49])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36F2D43D7B;
	Mon,  5 Jun 2006 17:00:22 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from mckusick@chez.mckusick.com)
Received: from chez.mckusick.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by chez.mckusick.com (8.13.6/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k55H0OeJ092393;
	Mon, 5 Jun 2006 10:00:24 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from mckusick@chez.mckusick.com)
Message-Id: <200606051700.k55H0OeJ092393@chez.mckusick.com>
To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.csail.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 05 Jun 2006 11:42:59 EDT."
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 10:00:24 -0700
From: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@chez.mckusick.com>
Cc: arch@freebsd.org, rwatson@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Why use `thread' as an argument of Syscalls? 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 17:00:42 -0000

> Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 11:42:59 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.csail.mit.edu>
> To: rwatson@freebsd.org
> Cc: arch@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Why use `thread' as an argument of Syscalls?
> 
> Robert Watson writes:
> 
> >Certainly consistency.  Most system calls do actually use the argument at some 
> >point -- be it to look up a file descriptor, access control, or the like, and 
> >the calling context has it for free and in-hand anyway.
> 
> I believe it was the intention of the 4.4BSD developers to completely
> eliminate "curproc" (as they had already successfully eliminated "u"),
> on the theory that with a modern (RISC) processor architecture,
> passing the current process as a parameter wouldn't cost anything
> (since it would stay in a register for the life of the system call)
> whereas making a context-switched "curproc" would be expensive.
> 
> -GAWollman

Your above analysis is correct. When we made the pass over the code
base to eliminate all references to "u." we had also hoped to get rid
of all references to "curproc". While we were successful with the former,
it eventually became clear that the latter was not practical. But by
that time, the convention of passing the current process pointer to
Syscall was established, and removing it did not seem to be worth 
the effort.

	Kirk McKusick