Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 19:01:36 -0700 From: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: JKH Project: x86: pcb_ext Message-ID: <20010920020136.E7F61380A@overcee.netplex.com.au> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.010919102621.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Baldwin wrote:
>
> On 19-Sep-01 Peter Wemm wrote:
> > The more I think about it, the right place may be the kse, since that
> > outlives
> > the threads and is per-cpu unlike the process.
> >
> > Or, we just say "no pcb extensions for kse processes".
>
> Each thread would need its own TSS, and to preserve existing semantics, we
> would have to change the TSS of all threads for each TSS related syscall. In
> light of that, I vote in favor of "no TSS's for kse processes" since TSS's ar
e
> used for very few things anyways. LDT's are another matter and can be moved
> w/o a problem.
The main two things we seem to use the per-process TSS stuff for are:
Fine grained IO port permission bitmap
VM86 mode
I think we can well do without the complexity of mixing KSE with those two.
We still would need to sync LDT reloads..
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-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010920020136.E7F61380A>