[coyotos-dev] Activations

[Christopher Nelson]

>
> > If you have to have additional storage for each activation handler
> > per-thread, then it seems like the only additional overhead for the
> > extern handlers it the address space mapping.
>
> I'm very confused as to why you keep coming back to this. In the
> external case, the handler is using *identically* the same address space
> as the faulting process.


Ah hah.  Thus part of my confusion.  It was my impression that an external
fault handler was a classic heavy process with it's own private address
space.  You and I are probably using process and thread in almost but not
quite compatible ways.  Regardless of how the instruction streams get
scheduled, if they share the same address space I tend to think of them as
threads, while threads that don't share the same address space are
processes.

----

Thinking about what you wrote, would it be generally fair to say that an
external fault handler is only external to the execution context of the
instruction stream it is handling faults for, whereas an activation handler
merges into and splits from the same context as the instruction stream it
handles faults for?

If that is a reasonably close approximation, then this makes much more sense
to me now.

-={C}=-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.coyotos.org/pipermail/coyotos-dev/attachments/20070523/d6ae6827/attachment-0001.html