Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 09:54:22 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: julian@current1.whistle.com (Julian Elischer) Cc: cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de, terry@lambert.org, rminnich@Sarnoff.COM, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Using rfork() / threads Message-ID: <199701311654.JAA02872@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970130233116.15337B-100000@current1.whistle.com> from "Julian Elischer" at Jan 30, 97 11:37:26 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> the reason that (1) is not yet implimented is that the kernel > stack is in that VM at the same address for each process, > and this MUST be unique per process.. > The SMP code must have solved this some how, > so if they finally check in that code we should be able > to switch to (1). Stack per processor. Really, there needs to be the concept of a kernel execution context, for a *lot* of reasons. Foremost would be the implementation of an async call gate. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199701311654.JAA02872>