From owner-freebsd-current Fri Feb 18 15: 5:18 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [216.240.41.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F3CD37BAED for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 15:05:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id PAA81713; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 15:04:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 15:04:45 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <200002182304.PAA81713@apollo.backplane.com> To: Matthew Dillon Cc: alc@cs.rice.edu, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: tentitive complete patch for MAP_GUARDED available References: <200002182141.QAA18866@pcnet1.pcnet.com> <200002182209.OAA81369@apollo.backplane.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG :: ::Correct me if I'm wrong, but using MAP_STACK|MAP_GUARDED ::would allocate one additional guard page for each threads ::stack. :: ::DanE. : : Correct. At the moment MAP_GUARDED is a 'generic' guarding flag : and makes no assumptions about the areas being adjoining. It doesn't : cost us anything. Hmm. The more I think about it, the more I dislike what I just said. I think I am going to change it to just guard the first N pages and not guard both the first and the last N pages. -Matt Matthew Dillon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message