In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 02:17:28 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > This changes the ABI for signals and ptrace() and that seems like
> > a bad idea to me.
> >
>
> I don't believe it does; it certainly shouldn't change the usermode
> ABI. How do you see it changing?
Nevermind. I thought because you changed struct pt_regs in ptrace_abi.h
it meant a user ABI change.
> > And the way things are done now is so ingrained into the i386
> > kernel that I'm not sure it can be done. E.g. I found two
> > open-coded implementations of current, one in kernel_fpu_begin()
> > and one in math_state_restore().
> >
>
> That's OK. The current task will still be available in thread_info;
But they can get out of sync, e.g. when switch_to() restores the new
task's esp, the PDA still contains the old pcurrent and they don't get
synchronized until the write_pda() in __switch_to().
> To be honest, I haven't looked at percpu.h in great detail. I was
> making assumptions about how it works, but it looks like they were wrong.
Would it make any sense to replace the 'cpu' field in thread_info with
a pointer to a PDA-like structure? We could even embed the static per_cpu
data directly into that struct instead of chasing pointers...
--
Chuck
-
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]
