From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat May 10 22:32:03 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-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 CAD4C37B401; Sat, 10 May 2003 22:32:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailman.zeta.org.au (mailman.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.16])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 2C38A43FE1; Sat, 10 May 2003 22:32:02 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from bde@zeta.org.au)
Received: from katana.zip.com.au (katana.zip.com.au [61.8.7.246])
	by mailman.zeta.org.au (8.9.3p2/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA19099;
	Sun, 11 May 2003 15:31:58 +1000
Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 15:31:57 +1000 (EST)
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
X-X-Sender: bde@gamplex.bde.org
To: David Schultz <das@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <20030510172609.GA29039@HAL9000.homeunix.com>
Message-ID: <20030511152818.Q74382@gamplex.bde.org>
References: <XFMail.20030509175046.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
	<20030510172609.GA29039@HAL9000.homeunix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: [Bikeshed] sigacts locking
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
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: Sun, 11 May 2003 05:32:04 -0000

On Sat, 10 May 2003, David Schultz wrote:

> On Fri, May 09, 2003, John Baldwin wrote:
> > As part of the locking for the proc structure, I needed to lock
> > the procsig and sigacts stuctures so that kill(), killpg(),
> > sigaction() and a few other system calls can be pulled out from
> > under Giant.  After talking with Peter some, I decided to
> > pull the sigacts structure out of the u-area and merge it with
> > the procsig structure under the sigacts name.  I then added a
> > ...
>
> It occurs to me that this leaves very little in the uarea.  You
> have a struct pstats, which is less than 256 bytes, and you have
> the kinfo_proc, which shouldn't need to be there anyway.  Perhaps
> now would also be a good time to get rid of uarea swapping and the
> associated complexity altogether.

I think this was planned.  See an old thread about not swapping either
the uarea or the stack.  It was agreed (?) that the uarea could go but
not swapping of the stack.

Bruce