On Wednesday 12 November 2003 05:33 pm, you wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2003, at 9:02 AM, Charles M. Hannum wrote:
> > If there is no performance difference now, then there is certainly no
> > point in
> > this
>
> I think his point is that it's not any slower.  And it has the nice
> effect of removing the limit on the number of processes.

Which could also be easily done by "swapping" the GDT slots.  It's not like 
this hack actually fixes the problem -- if I allocate enough LDTs it will 
still fall over.

> > since it will prevent other optimizations.
>
> Such as?

Such as using JMP TSS to do task switches, which avoids manually saving state 
and patching the GDT, and is faster.  And as I mentioned some time ago, will 
eventually allow switching directly to user-level without needing a kernel 
stack.