Subject: Re: per-cpu TSS
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: YAMAMOTO Takashi <email@example.com>
Date: 11/14/2003 19:15:15
> Uh, "sort of". You only need a kernel stack *per process* because we always
> store state on the state when we switch. We can arrange (cf. later versions
> of Mach) to not do so in many cases, and instead have a kernel stack per CPU
> most of the time. This would be especially beneficial for threads, as would
> it remove 8k of per-LWP overhead.
for mach's "stack handoff" tricks, you need to switch address spaces and
stacks separately. i guess it's actually harder with switch-by-TSS.