Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 19:04:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, Peter Jeremy <jeremyp@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bursting at the seams (was: Heh heh, humorous lockup) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.990707190223.23943e-100000@current1.whistle.com> In-Reply-To: <199907080137.SAA95818@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
we already use the gs register for SMP now.. what about the fs register? I vaguely remember that the different segments could be used to achieve this.... (%fs points to user space or something) julian On Wed, 7 Jul 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote: > :Why not put the kernel in a different address space? IIRC there's no > :absolute requirement for the kernel and userland to be in the same > :address space, and that way we would have 4 GB for each. > : > :Greg > > No, the syscall overhead is way too high if we have to mess with MMU > context. This would work fine on certain cpus with hardware PID support, > such as the MIPS, but the entire TLB is wiped when you change the mmu > context on an Intel cpu. > > -Matt > Matthew Dillon > <dillon@backplane.com> > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message > 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?Pine.BSF.3.95.990707190223.23943e-100000>