From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 12 09:20:50 2003 Return-Path: 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 3C05C37B401; Mon, 12 May 2003 09:20:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from canning.wemm.org (canning.wemm.org [192.203.228.65]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C61443FCB; Mon, 12 May 2003 09:20:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from wemm.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by canning.wemm.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 244352A7EA; Mon, 12 May 2003 09:20:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Bruce Evans In-Reply-To: <20030511152818.Q74382@gamplex.bde.org> Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 09:20:45 -0700 From: Peter Wemm Message-Id: <20030512162045.244352A7EA@canning.wemm.org> cc: arch@freebsd.org cc: David Schultz 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 16:20:50 -0000 Bruce Evans wrote: > 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. That is my recollection as well. Recently I've been thinking evil thoughts about the pcb as well.. ie: move it out of the stack, and leave the kstack pages solely for the kstack. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5