Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 09:20:45 -0700 From: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: David Schultz <das@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [Bikeshed] sigacts locking Message-ID: <20030512162045.244352A7EA@canning.wemm.org> In-Reply-To: <20030511152818.Q74382@gamplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bruce Evans wrote: > On Sat, 10 May 2003, David Schultz wrote: > > > On Fri, May 09, 2003, John Baldwin wrote: > > > As part of the locking for the proc structure, I needed to lock > > > the procsig and sigacts stuctures so that kill(), killpg(), > > > sigaction() and a few other system calls can be pulled out from > > > under Giant. After talking with Peter some, I decided to > > > pull the sigacts structure out of the u-area and merge it with > > > the procsig structure under the sigacts name. I then added a > > > ... > > > > It occurs to me that this leaves very little in the uarea. You > > have a struct pstats, which is less than 256 bytes, and you have > > the kinfo_proc, which shouldn't need to be there anyway. Perhaps > > now would also be a good time to get rid of uarea swapping and the > > associated complexity altogether. > > I think this was planned. See an old thread about not swapping either > the uarea or the stack. It was agreed (?) that the uarea could go but > not swapping of the stack. That is my recollection as well. Recently I've been thinking evil thoughts about the pcb as well.. ie: move it out of the stack, and leave the kstack pages solely for the kstack. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030512162045.244352A7EA>