lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Apr]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v6 1/5] Thread-local ABI system call: cache CPU number of running thread
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 12:39:21PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 04/07/2016 12:31 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 11:01:25AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >>> Because ideally this structure would be part of the initial (glibc) TCB
> >>> with fixed offset etc.
> >>
> >> This is not possible because we have layering violations and code
> >> assumes it knows the precise of the glibc TCB. I think Address
> >> Sanitizer is in this category. This means we cannot adjust the TCB size
> >> based on the kernel headers used to compile glibc, and there will have
> >> to be some indirection.
> >
> > So with the proposed fixed sized object it would work, right?
>
> I didn't see a proposal for a fixed size buffer, in the sense that the
> size of struct sockaddr_in is fixed.

This thing proposed a single 64byte structure (with the possibility of
eventually adding more 64byte structures). Basically:

struct tlabi {
union {
__u8[64] __foo;
struct {
/* fields go here */
};
};
} __aligned__(64);

People objected against the fixed size scheme, but it being possible to
get a fixed TCB offset and reduce indirections is a big win IMO.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-04-07 13:41    [W:0.074 / U:0.380 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site