lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Dec]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Why is double_fault serviced by a trap gate?
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000 richardj_moore@uk.ibm.com wrote:

> Which surely we can on today's x86 systems. Even back in the days of OS/2
> 2.0 running on a 386 with 4Mb RAM we used a taskgate for both NMI and
> Double Fault. You need only a minimal stack - 1K, sufficient to save state
> and restore ESP to a known point before switching back to the main TSS to
> allow normal exception handling to occur.

The memory hit is surely not a problem.

> There's no problem under MP since the double fault exception will be only
> presented on the processor that instigated the problem.

But what if another double fault happens on another CPU at roughly the
same time (unlikely, but still...)?

> As for NMIs I didn't think they were presented to all processors
> simultaneously. If they are then the way to handle that is to map a page of
> the GDT, to a unique physical address per-processor - i.e. processor
> local storage. The virtual address will be the same on each. This is what
> we did under OS/2 SMP.

Good idea.

> The only time you want the NMI handler to be fast is when it's being used
> for hand-shaking, which some disk devices do. And perhaps for APIC NMI
> class interprocessor interrupts. But I honestly don't think that's really a
> good enough reason not to have a task gate for NMI.

Do we really want to waste 60000+ CPU cycles every second just to handle
a TSS switch?

> The unpredictablility of the abort (NMI or Double-fault) refers to fact
> that in general it is indeterminate as to whether it is a fault or trap.

NMI is a normal interrupt (fault-like) and not an abort. It's fully
predictable.

> And that's a matter of whether the EIP point at ot after the instruction
> related to the exception. The abort nature of theses exceptions is not
> really a problem for the exception handler.

If you get a double fault during retrieving a CPU state from a TSS, you
may end with an inconsistent state -- you may be unable to iretd or use
the stack. For NMIs it doesn't happen -- an NMI event, if happens during
a TSS switch, will not be handled until the switch completes.

--
+ Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland +
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
+ e-mail: macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl, PGP key available +

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:51    [W:0.062 / U:1.160 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site