From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eli Collins To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] acme, rio workalike available in plan 9 ports In-Reply-To: <883be303d77057955c1a22b8d95e2732@plan9.bell-labs.com> Message-ID: References: <883be303d77057955c1a22b8d95e2732@plan9.bell-labs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 12:34:48 -0500 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 639fec08-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 jmk@plan9.bell-labs.com wrote: > > On Tue Apr 20 11:53:45 EDT 2004, rminnich@lanl.gov wrote: > > On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Eli Collins wrote: > > > > > Regarding the TLB and SOs, I can't figure out all the fuss either since > > > the TLB is flushed on context switch (on x86 at least). > > > > and that's the problem. > > > > ron > > Plan 9 on the x86 does not do a very good job of managing the TLB, when > the port was done there was only the option of flushing it entirely. Better > code for the modern variants may happen. > Where could it be improved? My understanding is that on x86 the TLB needs to be flushed entirely on context switch regardless of the OS (unless you want to carve up the 4GB linear address space among all proceses and use segmentation registers).