Matthew Dillon wrote: > The main reason we no longer swap the kernel stack is because there are > a whole lot of things we put on local thread stacks that other parts of the > system may reference even while the process is blocked. e.g. token > references, message structures, register or FP save state, and so forth. > I also intend to put cache related structures, such as range locks, on > the stack. I just didn't want to have to worry about it. > > Besides, it only happened when a process was actually *SWAPPED* out, not > just heavily paged, and how often does *that* happen these days? Even > on a heavily loaded system only a handful of processes, mostly getty's > and long-idle interactive shells, might actually be swapped out. This > makes the memory savings minimal at best. > > > I always worry about swapping out kernel stack. my lastest kernel umtx code is broken by this. I can not agree that per-mutex operation needs a pair of heavy malloc and free call, if kernel mutex performance is important, why userland mutex shouldn't be ? If I have to use malloc, I am afraid that I have to do more extra work than Linux does, I will fail under real world benchmark like super-smack etcs. > -Matt > > > >Received on Fri Mar 04 2005 - 00:21:17 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:29 UTC