[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <200608300503_MC3-1-C9C4-92F7@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 05:00:33 -0400
From: Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@...puserve.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>,
Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH RFC 0/6] Implement per-processor data areas for i386.
In-Reply-To: <20060827084417.918992193@...p.org>
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 01:44:17 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> This patch implements per-processor data areas by using %gs as the
> base segment of the per-processor memory.
This changes the ABI for signals and ptrace() and that seems like
a bad idea to me.
And the way things are done now is so ingrained into the i386
kernel that I'm not sure it can be done. E.g. I found two
open-coded implementations of current, one in kernel_fpu_begin()
and one in math_state_restore().
> - It also allows per-CPU data to be allocated as each CPU is brought
> up, rather than statically allocating it based on the maximum number
> of CPUs which could be brought up.
Can you describe what it is about the way things work now that
prevents dynamic allocation?
--
Chuck
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists