lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Sep]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86/vdso: Add prctl to set per-process VDSO load
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
> On Sep 17, 2014 1:46 AM, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 09/16/2014 11:21 PM, Filipe Brandenburger wrote:
>> > Hi Andy,
>> >
>> > On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
>> >> I think that the patch should instead tweak the vvar mapping to tell
>> >> the vdso not to use rdtsc. It should be based on this:
>> >
>> > I've been working on this approach which extends the vvar from 2 to 3
>> > pages. The third page would initially be mapped to a zero page but
>> > then through a prctl a task could replace it with a real page that
>> > could then be inherited through fork and exec.
>> >
>> > That would make it possible to have per-task vvar contents.
>> >
>> > We could use some of those values as flags to indicate whether vdso
>> > routines may use RDTSC or not.
>> >
>> > In the future, we're planning to also use that to store clock offsets
>> > so that we can ensure CLOCK_MONOTONIC works after CRIU migration
>> > without having to turn off the VDSO or have to always fallback to full
>> > syscalls on every case.
>> >
>> > Do you think that would be a reasonable way to accomplish that?
>> >
>>
>> Why would we need/want per process vvar contents? It seems better to
>> have the code swapped out.
>
> That seems messier from a build perspective. Also, if we ever want to
> switch this dynamically, swapping out data is much easier than
> swapping out code. I think we should be able to replace the vvar page
> with the zero page, though.
>
> One tricky bit: currently we can only easily do this on exec, but we
> should be able to do it immediately if we start tracking mremap of the
> vdso. Should we make that a prerequisite? I don't really want this
> to end up being permanently weird.

I have this (special mapping tracking) 3/4 implemented. I'm planning
on making it fully functional for 64-bit programs and almost correct
for 32-bit. (You'll still crash if you have multiple threads, you use
sysenter, and you remap the vdso, but I think that this is essentially
unavoidable until someone lets mremap work on multiple vmas at once.)

>
> As for an actual post-migration offset, I'd rather add support for
> per-mm forced syscall fallback and then get something into the code
> timing code before even thinking about an x86 vdso fast path. I don't
> think that a feature like per-mm timing offsets should happen as an
> arch-specific thing first.
>
> --Andy
>
>>
>> -hpa
>>
>>



--
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-09-19 22:01    [W:0.059 / U:0.644 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site