From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Sep 19 19:53:52 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from InterJet.elischer.org (c421509-a.pinol1.sfba.home.com [24.7.86.9]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04E3237B417; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 19:53:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elischer.org (InterJet.elischer.org [192.168.1.1]) by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA29293; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 20:39:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3BA959E7.43CD9CD6@elischer.org> Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 19:52:23 -0700 From: Julian Elischer X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT i386) X-Accept-Language: en, hu MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Wemm Cc: John Baldwin , hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: JKH Project: x86: pcb_ext References: <20010920020136.E7F61380A@overcee.netplex.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Peter Wemm wrote: > > 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. I could IMAGINE a vm86 version that ran the control/exception thread on another processor as a different thread. (though who would write it?) I could also imagine a muli-threaded program doing IO to a device as a userland driver. but of course hey'd need to be writen explicitly for it.. > > We still would need to sync LDT reloads.. that's more of a worry for me. Do we still have separate a LDT for threads? > > 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 -- +------------------------------------+ ______ _ __ | __--_|\ Julian Elischer | \ U \/ / hard at work in | / \ julian@elischer.org +------>x USA \ a very strange | ( OZ ) \___ ___ | country ! +- X_.---._/ presently in San Francisco \_/ \\ v To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message