On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 15:26:14 +0200
Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
> * Andi Kleen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Basically, non-atomic setup of basic architecture state _is_ going to be
> > > a nightmare, lockdep or not, especially if it uses common infrastructure
> > > like 'current', spin_lock() or even something as simple as C functions.
> > > (for example the stack-footprint tracer was once hit by this weakness of
> > > the x86_64 code)
> >
> > I disagree with that. The nightmare is putting stuff that needs so
> > much infrastructure into the most basic operations.
>
> ugh, "having a working current" is "so much infrastructure" ?? Lockdep
> uses a very low amount of infrastructure, considering its complexity: it
> has its own allocator, uses raw spinlocks, raw irq flags ops, it
> basically implements its own infrastructure for everything. Being able
> to access a per-task data area (current) is a quite fundamental thing
> for kernel code.
I must say that having an unreliable early-current is going to be quite a
pita for evermore. Things like mcount-based tricks and
basic-block-profiling-based tricks, for example.
Is it really going to be too messy to fake up some statically-defined gdt
which points at init_task, install that before we call any C at all?
-
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]
