Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 19:08:38 +0200 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@chez.mckusick.com> Cc: arch@freebsd.org, Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.csail.mit.edu>, rwatson@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why use `thread' as an argument of Syscalls? Message-ID: <20279.1149527318@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 05 Jun 2006 10:00:24 PDT." <200606051700.k55H0OeJ092393@chez.mckusick.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <200606051700.k55H0OeJ092393@chez.mckusick.com>, Kirk McKusick write s: >Your above analysis is correct. When we made the pass over the code >base to eliminate all references to "u." we had also hoped to get rid >of all references to "curproc". While we were successful with the former, >it eventually became clear that the latter was not practical. But by >that time, the convention of passing the current process pointer to >Syscall was established, and removing it did not seem to be worth >the effort. It would be a good Junior Kernel Hacker project to try to replace these passed arguments with curproc and see if a measurable difference in performance is obtained. -- 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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20279.1149527318>