[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091103181626.GB19715@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 19:16:26 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Americo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] update fix X86_64 procfs provide stack information for
threads
* Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net> wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 03.11.2009, 09:28 +0100 schrieb Ingo Molnar:
> > > --- linux-2.6.32-rc5/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h 2009-10-16 02:41:50.000000000 +0200
> > > +++ linux-2.6.32-rc5.new/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h 2009-11-02 10:39:47.177909657 +0100
> > > @@ -1000,7 +1001,13 @@
> > > #define thread_saved_pc(t) (*(unsigned long *)((t)->thread.sp - 8))
> > >
> > > #define task_pt_regs(tsk) ((struct pt_regs *)(tsk)->thread.sp0 - 1)
> > > -#define KSTK_ESP(tsk) -1 /* sorry. doesn't work for syscall. */
> > > +
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_IA32_EMULATION
> > > +extern unsigned long KSTK_ESP(struct task_struct *task);
> > > +#else
> > > +#define KSTK_ESP(task) ((task)->thread.usersp)
> > > +#endif
> > > +
> > > #endif /* CONFIG_X86_64 */
> > >
> > > extern void start_thread(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long new_ip,
> > > --- linux-2.6.32-rc5/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c 2009-10-16 02:41:50.000000000 +0200
> > > +++ linux-2.6.32-rc5.new/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c 2009-11-02 10:48:23.614936810 +0100
> > > @@ -664,3 +669,11 @@
> > > return do_arch_prctl(current, code, addr);
> > > }
> > >
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_IA32_EMULATION
> > > +unsigned long KSTK_ESP(struct task_struct *task)
> > > +{
> > > + return (test_tsk_thread_flag(task, TIF_IA32)) ? \
> > > + (task_pt_regs(task)->sp) : \
> > > + ((task)->thread.usersp);
> > > +}
> > > +#endif
> >
> > That's quite ugly. The KSTK_ESP() function should be unconditional and
> > the #ifdef should be eliminated. If CONFIG_IA32_EMULATION is turned off
> > (whichis rare) then TIF_IA32 wont be set so the function should work
> > fine.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ingo
>
> Hi Ingo,
>
> come on, thats not fair. [...]
(Hacking the kernel is rarely 'fair' in the way you seem to be defining
it.)
> [...] This would be not the only piece of ugly code in the x86_64
> implementation. It is much better than the previous hack where
> KSTK_ESP always returns a wrong hard coded value. That is really
> ugly!!!!
>
> It took me 6 hours to analyze the x64_64 code, most of them written in
> assembler. I think it is a first solution, which makes the procfs
> stack information work on this architecture and that was the goal.
>
> I will remove the #ifdef's and repost the patch. Please accept this
> patch, which make the KSTP_ESP thing on x86_64 better as before.
>
> I am not a x64_64 bit hacker, i have not the knowledge to make a
> perfect solution for this architecture. Also i am not a full time
> kernel hacker, i have customers who wait for their projects.
The cleanup isnt really that hard at all, writng your mail probably took
more time. I didnt see you complain when we merged your original procfs
patch that introduced/exposed this whole issue:
d899bf7: procfs: provide stack information for threads
Fixing followup issues is standard part of the work-with-upstream
fairness equation.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists