From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:10:38 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:10:38 -0500 Received: from ns.suse.de ([213.95.15.193]:46604 "EHLO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:10:36 -0500 Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:21:07 +0100 From: Andi Kleen To: Ulrich Drepper Cc: Andi Kleen , Linux Kernel Subject: Re: Better CLONE_SETTLS support for Hammer Message-ID: <20030305212107.GB7961@wotan.suse.de> References: <3E664836.7040405@redhat.com> <20030305190622.GA5400@wotan.suse.de> <3E6650D4.8060809@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E6650D4.8060809@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 11:32:36AM -0800, Ulrich Drepper wrote: > > If you just want to save one mmap/allocation: I think the context switch > > overhead will be more expensive than the allocation. > > And two more things: > > 1. every process will already use the prctl(ARCH_SET_FS). We are > talking here only about the 2nd thread and later. We need to use > prctl(ARCH_SET_FS) for TLS support. Not when you put it into the first four GB. Then you can use the same calls as 32bit. > 2. May I remind you that you were in the crowd who complained when we > requested a dedicated thread register? Yes, I still would prefer that > but I have no energy to battle for that. I don't see the connection. -Andi