From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Sep 19 18:18:05 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id SAA00792 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 18:18:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from parkplace.cet.co.jp (parkplace.cet.co.jp [202.32.64.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA00766 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 18:18:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (michaelh@localhost) by parkplace.cet.co.jp (8.7.5/CET-v2.1) with SMTP id BAA20879; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 01:16:03 GMT Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 10:16:03 +0900 (JST) From: Michael Hancock To: Terry Lambert cc: dg@Root.COM, bde@zeta.org.au, proff@suburbia.net, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: thread stacks and protections (was Re: attribute/inode caching) In-Reply-To: <199609191856.LAA01219@phaeton.artisoft.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 19 Sep 1996, Terry Lambert wrote: > The threading stack issue is one of either splitting or domainizing > the stack address space. Splitting requires using different mappings > from one thread to another. Domainizing is inherently unsatisfactory > because it leads to things like "no one will ever need mre than 4K of > stack" (a statement Windows95 and Windows NT implicitly make for VXD's). It is unsatisfactory to see hardlimits forced by the architecture. I understand there are tradeoffs, though I'm not sure what you mean by splitting. > I think John Dyson's response is best: it can be implemented (I wouldn't > say it was as trivial to do as John implies, but then John is a VM > guy and I am an FS guy), but we need to make sure that it's the right > thing being implemented. Yes. Regards, Mike Hancock