On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 16:03:08 -0700, 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.
Like pthread_attr_setcreatesuspend_np(3) + pthread_create(3)? -uwe
