Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 05:36:13 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Andrew Reilly <areilly@bigpond.net.au> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>, John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Subject: Re: Kernel Thread scheduler Message-ID: <3C31BB4D.8F580A4D@mindspring.com> References: <20011122012838.V13393@elvis.mu.org> <XFMail.011121233016.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20011122014109.W13393@elvis.mu.org> <20020101224733.A25053@gurney.reilly.home>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andrew Reilly wrote: > On Thu, Nov 22, 2001 at 01:41:09AM -0600, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > Why do we even care? When was the last time wine was good for > > anything besideds barely being able to run solitare on FreeBSD > > anyhow? > > I know that this is a long dead thread, but I'm on holidays now, > and have time to catch up with the FreeBSD lists... > > Wine is actually very useful (to me) and has been for several > years. I run two applications under it that there aren't other > alternatives for (besides firing up a windows box): Two comments: 1) The TSS switch can be lazy-bound, and so a TSS is not needed per process (setting a TSS per process would have the unfortunate effect of limiting you to 1023 processes... 1024 - 1 for the kernel). This is why Linux removed the TSS dependency on context switches, and why FreeBSD never had it (limit of one 4k page of 32 bit entries = 1024). FreeBSD WINE support has historically lazy-bound this. 2) WINE has a terrible historical track record overall; I personally blame this on their "percentage entry point coverage" calculation, which always fails on the Nth call, which is unimplemented, and then claims ((N-1)/N *100) as the percentage of interface coverage when it's a complete statistical lie. The real question is where is the TSS going to be lazy-bound; I think it's still OK to do it at the process level, and can't see an application for threads (any VM86 calls could be thunked to a single TSS in the kernel for use for VM86, and it's really not necessary with any modern processors, which have an IRQ fast path in hardware, anyway, even if it is a poorly documented one. See The MindShare Protected Mode book). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3C31BB4D.8F580A4D>