[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Tread/Task IDs
From: |
karlm |
Subject: |
Tread/Task IDs |
Date: |
Tue, 06 May 2003 16:37:31 -0400 |
What was the rationelle for not using a full 64-bit thread/task ID on
both 32- and 64-bit systems? How large would the performance hit be?
Surely at least a full macine register for the task ID was considered
for the X.2 API. Why was it rejected? I assume it has to do with not
wanting multi-level thread ID tables for performence reasons. How
large would the performence hit be?
I admit I have only dabbled in kernel space and I usually do cryptographic
stuff in userspace with 128-bit or 256-bit IDs. Maybe I'm just jaded from
huge IDs. However, it would seem to me that there would be many fewer hacks
if IDs were at least 32-bits, if not 64-bits.
I'm sure the X.2 API was very well thought out, I'm just a little surprised
at the kludges HURD is forced to consider due to the L4 API. I'd like to
see what I'm missing.
-Karl -- ignorant userspace coder