From owner-freebsd-arch Sun Jan 6 2:39:18 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from srv1.cosmo-project.de (srv1.cosmo-project.de [213.83.6.106]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0677837B402 for ; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 02:39:15 -0800 (PST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by srv1.cosmo-project.de (8.11.6/8.11.6) with UUCP id g06AcuP18160; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 11:38:56 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso@cicely8.cicely.de) Received: from mail.cicely.de (cicely20.cicely.de [10.1.1.22]) by cicely5.cicely.de (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g06Acptx077288; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 11:38:51 +0100 (CET)?g (envelope-from ticso@cicely8.cicely.de) Received: from cicely8.cicely.de (cicely8.cicely.de [10.1.2.10]) by mail.cicely.de (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id g06AcoW19260; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 11:38:50 +0100 (CET) Received: (from ticso@localhost) by cicely8.cicely.de (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g06AcmI17778; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 11:38:48 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 11:38:48 +0100 From: Bernd Walter To: Terry Lambert Cc: Alfred Perlstein , Dan Eischen , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Request for review: getcontext, setcontext, etc Message-ID: <20020106113847.A15885@cicely8.cicely.de> References: <3C37E559.B011DF29@vigrid.com> <20020106032709.A82406@elvis.mu.org> <3C381B48.AADDCA2B@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3C381B48.AADDCA2B@mindspring.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-Operating-System: FreeBSD cicely8.cicely.de 5.0-CURRENT i386 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 01:39:20AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote: > Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > * Dan Eischen [020105 23:36] wrote: > > > Is there a reason that getcontext and setcontext need to be > > > system calls? > > > > Atomicity? > > To flush register windows on setcontext() on SPARC. wflush isn't a priviledged instruction and usualy emulated on < sparcv9. mit-pthreads use it from userland. Are there any performance reasons to flush windows in kernel? AFAIK wflush makes an exception for each window on it's own so I could imagine a possible difference. Or am I overseeing something? -- B.Walter COSMO-Project http://www.cosmo-project.de ticso@cicely.de Usergroup info@cosmo-project.de To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message