From owner-freebsd-arch Sun Nov 11 14:28:12 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A16737B419; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 14:28:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fABMRCL01972; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 23:27:17 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: Peter Wemm Cc: Robert Watson , freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cur{thread/proc}, or not. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 11 Nov 2001 11:17:34 PST." <20011111191735.00D053807@overcee.netplex.com.au> Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 23:27:12 +0100 Message-ID: <1970.1005517632@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Poul-Henning Kamp 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 In message <20011111191735.00D053807@overcee.netplex.com.au>, Peter Wemm writes: > [ass'y output of gcc] > >Ever wonder why the kernel gets slower and slower to compile? Ever >compiled a 2.1 or 2.2 kernel on a modern machine and been shocked away by >the speed? > >Count me in the 'curproc considered harmful' camp. (or curthread). Peters example more than clenches the argument for me, but I also wonder if we would not paint ourselves into a corner with the cur{proc|thread} stuff if the future ends up being more parallel and cluster-oriented. Roberto! come over here! Do you zink zese Curproc and Curthread they will get losst on zeir way home ? Good boy. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message