lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [May]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: context tracking vs. syscall_trace_leave & do_notify_resume loop
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 05/01/2015 12:05 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 9:00 AM, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>> I suspect we probably only need two possible function
>>> calls at syscall exit time:
>>>
>>> 1) A function that is called with interrupts still
>>> enabled, testing flags that could be set again
>>> if something happens (eg. preemption) between
>>> when the function is called, and we return to
>>> user space.
>>>
>>> 2) A function that is called after the point of
>>> no return, with interrupts disabled, which
>>> does (mostly) small things that only happen
>>> once.
>>
>> I think we only need one function. It would be (asm pseudocode):
>>
>> disable irqs;
>> if (slow) {
>> save extra regs;
>> call function;
>> restore extra regs;
>> }
>>
>> return via opportunistic sysret path.
>>
>> I can't see any legitimate reason for the current mess, except that
>> it's no complicated and so poorly documented that everyone's afraid of
>> fixing it.
>
> do_notify_resume() can call do_signal(), which can sleep, after
> which all bets are off on what new flags may have been set.
>
> On the other hand, we have stuff that can run just fine with
> irqs disabled that we really want to call only once.
>
> For that reason, I suspect we need two functions.

C can have loops just as easily as assembly can :) I still don't see
why we need magic asm code to schedule and deliver signals. We
certainly need to have valid pt_regs to deliver signals, but that's
easy and much cheaper than it used to be.

--Andy


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-05-01 18:41    [W:0.671 / U:0.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site