Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:52:43 -0700 | From | Jeremy Fitzhardinge <> | Subject | Re: [crash, bisected] Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86_64: Fold pda into per cpu area |
| |
Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Nope. It achieves that affect with a magic set of relocations instead > of linker magic. >
Well, the code gcc generates for -fstack-protector emits a literal "%gs:40", so there's no relocations at all.
>> At present, the x86-64 only uses %gs-relative addressing to reach the pda, which >> are always small positive offsets. It always accesses per-cpu data in a >> two-step process of getting the base of per-cpu data, then offsetting to find >> the particular variable. >> >> x86-32 has no pda, and arranges %fs so that %fs:variable gets the percpu variant >> of variable. The offsets are always quite large. >> > > As a practical matter I like that approach (except for extra code size > of the offsets). >
Yes, and there's no reason we couldn't do the same on 64-bit, aside from the stack-protector's use of %gs:40. There's no code-size cost in large offsets, since they're always 32-bits anyway (there's no short absolute addressing mode).
>> The powerpc guys tried using gcc-level thread-local storage, but it doesn't work >> well. per-cpu data and per-thread data have different constraints, and its hard >> to tell gcc about them. For example, if you have a section of preemptable code >> in your function, it's hard to tell gcc not to cache a "thread-local" variable >> across it, even though we could have switched CPUs in the meantime. >> > > Yes, I completely agree with that. It doesn't mean however that we > can't keep gcc ignorant and generate the same code manually. >
Yes, I see. I haven't looked at that specifically, but I think both Rusty and Andi have, and it gets tricky with modules and -ve kernel addresses, or something.
> Well I was thinking threads switching on a cpu having the kinds of problems you > described when it was tried on ppc.
Uh, I think we're having a nomenclature imprecision here. Strictly speaking, the kernel doesn't have threads, only tasks and CPUs. We only care about per-cpu data, not per-task data, so the concern is not "threads switching on a CPU" but "CPUs switching on (under) a task". But I think we understand each other regardless ;)
If we manually generate %gs-relative references to percpu data, then it's no different to what we do with 32-bit, whether it be a specific symbol address or using the TLS relocations.
J
| |