Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 16:15:46 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com>, Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com>, Dan Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>, k Macy <kip_macy@yahoo.com>, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, Julian Elischer <julian@vicor-nb.com>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: KSE question Message-ID: <3C51F532.87ADF4A5@mindspring.com> References: <3C51D0B6.F6E04EBC@mindspring.com> <Pine.SUN.3.91.1020125164325.24428A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> <15441.56832.170618.611705@caddis.yogotech.com> <3C51E888.FD13A18D@mindspring.com> <15441.59691.361172.394760@caddis.yogotech.com> <3C51F18A.C0D8D6B1@mindspring.com> <15441.62092.864056.841853@caddis.yogotech.com> <3C51F492.CB0FB69E@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Replying to myself... Terry Lambert wrote: > Unfortunately, we can't fix the base problem, which is > "delayed exception signalling on x86 FPUs sucks". 8-). > > I think the only thing we can do is guarantee correctness. > > Right now, I'm just trying to avoid dragging everyone down > with the FPU using code, which I think, *has* to drag down, > at this point. 8-(. It occurs to me that if we could limit the FPU using code to the model where there is one KSE per user space thread, then we get what Linux threads has now, and can do lazy binding. Obviously, there's a performance penalty to that approach, as well, but I think we are going to have to pay the piper one way or the other, if we use the FPU. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3C51F532.87ADF4A5>