[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: [RFC][PATCH] _UC_TLSBASE for all ports
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012, Matt Thomas wrote:
> On Aug 11, 2012, at 10:35 AM, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 06:45:12AM +0000, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> >> It is a slippery slope, but I think in this case it is wise to bend.
> >> If we cannot reach agreement here, consult core.
> > I see no point bending NetBSD into knots in this case if the resulting
> > performance is as bad as Joerg claims it will be. Is it actually the
> > case that our *context() functions are almost as heavy as a full
> > kernel-level thread switch?
> I'm wondering if we need a new makecontext which can allocate a new
> private thread-local area. We can set the stack via uc_stack but
> there isn't a way to allocate a new thread-local area.
I think this whole thing needs a careful redesign. IMHO the reason we
never got scheduler activations stable across all architectures is that
the semantics of the *context() routines were never properly specified.
If I knew what those routines were supposed to do I might have been able
to fix them. But as it was implementation defined functionality....
Main Index |
Thread Index |