On Wed, 14 Feb 2007, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Are there any special semantics that result from running the syslet
> atoms in kernel mode? If I wanted to, could I write a syslet emulation
> in userspace that's functionally identical to a kernel-based
> implementation? (Obviously the performance characteristics will be
> different.)
>
> I'm asking from the perspective of trying to work out the Valgrind
> binding for this if it goes into the kernel. Valgrind needs to see all
> the input and output values of each system call the client makes,
> including those done within the syslet mechanism. It seems to me that
> the easiest way to do this would be to intercept the syslet system
> calls, and just implement them in usermode, performing the same series
> of syscalls directly, and applying the Valgrind machinery to each one in
> turn.
>
> Would this work?
Hopefully the API will simplify enough so that emulation will becomes
easier.
> Also, an unrelated question: is there enough control structure in place
> to allow multiple syslet streams to synchronize with each other with
> futexes?
I think the whole point of an async execution of a syscall or a syslet, is
that the syscall/syslet itself includes a non interlocked operations with
other syscalls/syslets. So that the main scheduler thread can run in a
lockless/singletask fashion. There are no technical obstacles that
prevents you to do it, bu if you start adding locks (and hence having
long-living syslet-threads) at that point you'll end up with a fully
multithreaded solution.
- Davide
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
