From owner-freebsd-current Mon Sep 6 13:22:12 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from herring.nlsystems.com (nlsys.demon.co.uk [158.152.125.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99CCA15AE6 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 13:21:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dfr@nlsystems.com) Received: from salmon.nlsystems.com (salmon.nlsystems.com [10.0.0.3]) by herring.nlsystems.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA76685; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 21:21:22 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from dfr@nlsystems.com) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 21:21:22 +0100 (BST) From: Doug Rabson To: Garrett Wollman Cc: Jason Nordwick , current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: (P)review: sigset_t for more than 32 signals In-Reply-To: <199909061833.OAA03865@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 6 Sep 1999, Garrett Wollman wrote: > < said: > > > Wouldn't you hose uthread performance? I thought that one of the major > > benefits it that a context switch in uthreads did not require kernel > > intervention and a syscall. > > It's true that this would (currently) slow down uthreads. However, I > suspect that uthreads may want to do its own signal-mask handling > anyway (even though it currently doesn't). On the other hand, if we > made jmp_buf and struct sigcontext compatible, it could clean up the > thread scheduler's inner workings. FWIW, jmp_buf and struct sigcontext are compatibly on the alpha platform. -- Doug Rabson Mail: dfr@nlsystems.com Nonlinear Systems Ltd. Phone: +44 181 442 9037 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message