Subject: Re: tsleep
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Mirian Crzig Lennox <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/06/1999 11:47:43
Jason Thorpe <email@example.com> writes:
> On 05 Jul 1999 10:08:10 -0400
> Mirian Crzig Lennox <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Something I've been wondering about lately...
> > Why does tsleep() take a hardcoded string as its mnemonic wchan value?
> > I can't imaging this would be any more informative than a simple
> > symbol address (especially since we only display the first 6 chars of
> > it anyway), and it seems a bit of a waste of memory to have all those
> > extra strings in the kernel image.
> Having that string available is *really nice* sometimes, as it indicates
> where the code is blocked, even though each thread may be blocked on a
> unique wchan value.
Understood... but it seems you could still save some memory by
replacing the string parameter with a symbol address (*in addition to*
the actual wchan address). Why maintain (effectively) two distinct
symbol tables in kernel memory?
Mirian Crzig Lennox Systems Anarchist
"Don't follow leaders... watch the parking meters." --Bob Dylan