Nathan J. Williams wrote:
> Thor Lancelot Simon <tls@rek.tjls.com> writes:
> 
> 
>>To a cursory examination, it looks like it's possible that a number of
>>syscalls that touch only process state (particularly read-only ones
>>like getcwd, getpid, etc. but also some that change state, like
>>chdir, chroot, and a few others) could easily take subsystem locks
>>instead of the giant lock.
>>
>>Is this correct?
> 
> 
> Yes. The MD syscall code checks for the SYSCALL_MPSAFE flag and
> doesn't take the big-lock if it's set. It's currently only set for
> getpid(). Exactly what else it could be easily applied to is less
> clear; getpid() is the only true no-brainer that requires taking no
> locks on anything at all.

get*gid?
get*uid?



-- 
Matt Thomas                     email: matt@3am-software.com
3am Software Foundry              www: http://3am-software.com/bio/matt/
Cupertino, CA              disclaimer: I avow all knowledge of this message.